Fl LE
IN CLERKS OFFICE
aJPReME COURT, STATE OF WAIIIRmll
·-···-.I!JJI'''
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
)
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 89830-8
Respondent, )
)
v. ) ENBANC
)
ODIES DELANDUS WALKER, )
) Filed: JAN 2 2 2015
Petitioner. )
_______________________)
YU, J.- Odies Delandus Walker was convicted as an accomplice to first
degree murder, first degree assault, first degree robbery, solicitation, and
conspiracy. The primary question in this case is whether those convictions must be
reversed in light of the PowerPoint presentation the prosecuting attorney used
during closing argument. That presentation repeatedly expressed the prosecutor's
personal opinion on guilt-over 100 of its approximately 250 slides were headed
with the words "DEFENDANT WALKER GUILTY OF PREMEDITATED
MURDER," and one slide showed Walker's booking photograph altered with the
words "GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT," which were
superimposed over his face in bold red letters. The prosecutor also appealed to
State v. Walker, No. 89830-8
passion and prejudice by juxtaposing photographs of the victim with photographs
of Walker and his family, some altered with the addition of inflammatory captions
and superimposed text. While the prosecutor is entitled to draw the jury's attention
to admitted evidence, those slides, as presented, served no legitimate purpose.
Their prejudicial effect could not have been cured by a timely objection, and we
cannot conclude with any confidence that Walker's convictions were the result of a
fair trial. Consistent with both long-standing precedent and our recent holding in In
re Personal Restraint ofGlasmann, 175 Wn.2d 696, 286 P.3d 673 (2012), we must
reverse Walker's convictions and remand for a new trial.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
We summarize the underlying facts to provide a context for our decision in
this case. The State's evidence supports the following version of the events.
During the relevant time period, Walker lived with his girlfriend, Tonie
Marie Williams-Irby; several of their children; and Walker's cousin, Calvin Finley.
Williams-Irby worked at a Walmart in Lakewood as a department manager.
Williams-Irby told Walker, Finley, and another friend (Jonathan) that she knew·
what time an armored truck arrived each day to pick up the store's daily receipts
and knew the average daily amount of those receipts from staff meetings. Several
weeks later, Walker discussed the armored truck with Finley and Jonathan, saying
it would be "easy money." 7 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 656.
2
State v. Walker, No. 89830-8
Jonathan was later excluded from the robbery discussions. Other potential
participants were considered, and ultimately Walker, Finley, and their friend
Marshawn Turpin made a plan to rob the armored truck "custodian." 4 VRP at 170.
During this preliminary planning stage, Walker and Finley discussed the possibility
that Finley might need to shoot the armored truck custodian. Walker told Finley to
"do what you got to do," 7 VRP at 665, and that Walker would provide a gun.
Williams-Irby was aware of these plans and would regularly answer Walker's
questions about the amount of the store's daily receipts.
On the day of the crime, Walker drove Williams-Irby to work and asked her
to find out what the day's receipts would be. Williams-Irby went to the daily staff
meeting and reported to Walker that the day's receipts totaled $207,000. Walker
and Finley then drove to the Walmart in a white Buick Oldsmobile. Turpin arrived
in a gold Nissan Maxima, then entered the parked Buick. When the armored truck
arrived to pick up the money, Finley and Turpin entered the store while Walker
remained in the Buick. Finley was armed with a handgun. As the armored truck
custodian reached the store entrance to leave, Finley and Turpin approached him
and Finley shot him in the head, killing him. Finley and Turpin grabbed the money
bag and fled in the Buick. Walker drove them to an alley behind a friend's house to
ditch the car. Walker later returned to the Walmart to pick up the gold Nissan.
3
State v. Walker, No. 89830-8
When Williams-Irby returned home from work, Walker told her that they
needed to go to where he had left the Buick so he could wipe away his fingerprints.
When they got there, police officers were milling around the car, so they left and
drove to another friend's house (AI Trevino). Williams-Irby testified that on the
way to Trevino's house, Walker told her that he was in the white Buick in the
Walmart parking lot and was on the phone with Finley during the robbery. When
Finley asked for the money, the armored truck driver laughed, so Walker told
Finley to "kill the mother fucker." 8 VRP at 729.
Finley and Turpin were already at Trevino's house when Walker and
Williams-Irby arrived. After distributing some of the cash, Walker, Finley, and
Turpin placed the clothes they were wearing during the robbery and the now-
empty money bag into a plastic bag, which Finley discarded in a nearby river.
Walker and Williams-Irby left Trevino's house after about 30 minutes and
drove to a motel in Fife where Walker met up with Finley and Trevino. Walker and
Williams-Irby then drove to a Walmart in Federal Way, and Walker bought two
safes and a video game system. Walker kept one safe for himself and drove back to
Fife to give the other safe to Finley. Walker and Williams-Irby then returned home,
where Walker put a gun and his share of the robbery proceeds in his safe and put
the safe and the video game system in his bedroom closet.
4
State v. Walker, No. 89830-8
Walker then took Williams-Irby and their children out for dinner at Red
Lobster. At dinner, Walker told Williams-Irby's son, "This is how you murder
these niggers and get this money." Jd. at 773. Walker paid the bill for the meal,
nearly $200, in cash. Police pulled over and arrested Walker and Williams-Irby as
they drove home from the restaurant. Williams-Irby told police she didn't know
anything. When interviewed by police, Walker denied having any involvement
with the robbery.
Williams-Irby was charged and, after entering into a plea agreement with the
State, testified against Walker consistent with the above factual summary. The
State charged Walker as an accomplice to aggravated first degree premeditated
murder, first degree felony murder, first degree assault, first degree robbery, first
degree solicitation to commit robbery, and first degree conspiracy to commit
robbery. The State also sought deadly weapon enhancements for the murder,
assault, and robbery charges.
In opening statements, the prosecutor said:
When the police question the defendant, he is being-he is
adamant. He is cursing. He is yelling. He is swearing. He is saying he
didn't have any idea why the police stopped him. Why did you arrest
me? I didn't do anything. I had nothing to do with it. My wife,
Williams-Irby, she didn't have anything to do with this. He is lying
like crazy to the police. Williams-Irby pled guilty to second-degree
murder, and she will tell you what she had to do with it. He told the
cops he didn't have anything to do with it.
... At the close of this case, we are going to ask you to convict
the defendant of each one, every one of these righteous charges that
5
,
State v. Walker, No. 89830-8
have been filed against him.
Suppl. VRP (Mar. 7, 2011) at 48, 52. Walker's counsel did not object to these
statements.
During closing remarks, the prosecutor utilized a PowerPoint presentation
made up of approximately 250 slides. Over 100 of those slides have the heading
"DEFENDANT WALKER GUILTY OF PREMEDITATED MURDER." Pl.'s
Ex. 243, at 6-7,9-49, 54, 56-59,61-66, 68-77. Two slides have the heading
"DEFENDANT WALKER GUILTY OF ASSAULT IN THE FIRST
DEGREE," id. at 83, and three have the heading "DEFENDANT WALKER
GUILTY OF SOLICITATION TO COMMIT ROBBERY," id. at 85-86. The
PowerPoint also includes a slide superimposing the words "GUlL TY BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT" over Walker's booking photo.Jd. at 87. The record
contains only grayscale copies of the slides, but the briefing indicates that the
lettering was in bright red. See Pet'r's Suppl. Br. at 2.
6
State v. Walker, No. 89830-8
Pl.'s Ex. 243, at 87.
There is a series of slides suggesting Walker is guilty because he used the
stolen money for video games and lobster. The first asserts, "Defendant Walker is
GUILTY as an ACCOMPLICE to the murder because he SPLURGED ON
FRIVOLOUS THINGS." Id. at 63. The next slides explain that those splurges
included "[two] safes, a WII [sic] and several games at the Federal Way Walmart,"
as well as "$200.00 for dinner at the Red Lobster." Jd. at 63-64. The next slide is a
photo of Walker and his family happily eating that dinner. Id. at 64.
DEFENDANT WALKER GUlLTV OF DEFENDANT WALKER GUlLTY
PREMEDITATED MURDER PREMEDITATED MURDER
t'U5:FeNDANT SPLURGED
(28} O~fendant Walker is GUlLTY as an
ACCOMPLICE to th~ murder kliflState v. Walker
Combined Opinion