An appeals court has determined that a defense lawyer's conduct during a gun trial was "plainly deficient" for agreeing to disclose the specific nature of his client's prior felony to the jury, despite repeated warnings from Clallam County Superior Court Judge Brent Basden to avoid doing so.
The conviction has been upheld regardless.
In an unpublished opinion issued July 20, 2026, Division One of the Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the Clallam County conviction of a local man for first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm.
Chief Judge Cecily Hazelrigg authored the opinion, joined by Judges Janet Chung and Michael Diaz.
Fireworks, a Fire, and Shell Casings
Officers from the Port Angeles police and the Lower Elwha Klallam tribe responded to a 911 report regarding a possible firearm violation on July 21, 2024, according to court documents.
A neighbor reported children setting off fireworks and a fire along Highway 101. She later testified that she observed the defendant holding a gun overhead and firing four rounds from a distance of under 50 feet.
Officer Kyle Buchanan testified that he located brass shell casings in the driveway and witnessed the defendant place a foot over one. A records check subsequently revealed a prior felony conviction.
Buchanan detained the defendant and obtained a search warrant. He then recovered a .40 caliber pistol with a loaded magazine from a trailer bench after the defendant offered to disclose its location "to make things easy."
The defendant testified that he heard only fireworks. His partner testified that the pistol belonged to her, though she had not completed the purchase.
At the April 2025 trial, jurors acquitted the defendant of all three witness tampering counts but convicted him on the gun charge.
The Stipulation
Under *Old Chief v. United States*, a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a defendant may agree to a stipulation regarding a disqualifying conviction so that jurors are never told the name of the crime. This allows the state to prove only that a prior "serious offense" occurred.
The stipulation, signed by the defendant, his attorney, and the prosecutor, specified the crime: conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance while armed with a deadly weapon. Two sentences later, the document instructed jurors not to speculate about the nature of that conviction.
Judge Basden attempted to prevent this disclosure. He offered an alternative version stating only "serious issue," warned that the name could be prejudicial "far more than probative," and stated he "would not allow that in front of a jury."
He returned the document to the defense for reconsideration, noting he did not want to "build an error into this thing right from the get-go."
The defense maintained its position, and the prosecutor read the stipulation to the jury. The following day, defense counsel questioned whether naming the offense had been necessary.
Judge Basden kept the reference out of the written instruction but noted he could not "unring that bell."
"No Legitimate Trial Tactic"
"On this record, there is no legitimate trial tactic to provide this prejudicial information to the jury," Hazelrigg wrote.
The state argued that it was a conceivable strategy to prevent speculation. The panel rejected this reasoning, noting that jurors are presumed to follow instructions and were explicitly told not to speculate.
The opinion indicates that the deputy prosecutor was as confused regarding *Old Chief* as defense counsel, and a footnote praises Judge Basden's "patient and thoughtful efforts."
To succeed on appeal, the defendant still needed to demonstrate that the evidentiary issue altered the verdict's outcome. The court rejected this argument. Reviewing the defendant's own statements, the panel noted that he acknowledged possessing a firearm at his residence, recognized his status as a convicted felon, and identified the weapon's location as a hat storage area where he admitted retrieving headwear.
The court determined this admission established constructive possession, rendering the neighbor's testimony unnecessary.
Sentencing and Future Options
Judge Basden issued a 26-month sentence on April 22, 2025, placing it at the lower boundary of the standard sentencing range.
He declined a drug offender sentencing alternative for prison and mandated four years of felony firearm offender registration upon release.
Since the ruling remains unpublished, it does not establish binding precedent; however, GR 14.1 permits its citation as nonbinding authority. The defendant retains a 30-day window to petition the state Supreme Court for review.