Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears challenge to Bryson Morgan murder conviction; debate centers on premeditation evidence and juror-bias claim
Summary
In oral argument, defense counsel urged the Court of Appeals to reverse Bryson Morgan’s murder convictions for lack of evidence of premeditation and for an improperly denied peremptory challenge under GR 37; the prosecutor told the panel the combined evidence supports jurors’ inference of deliberation.
The Washington State Court of Appeals panel heard oral argument in State of Washington v. Bryson Morgan focused on two central issues: whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove premeditation for first-degree murder and whether a GR 37 challenge to a peremptory strike warranted relief.
Tim Ascarab, counsel for the appellant, told the court that "even when viewed in the light most favorable to the state the evidence in this case was not sufficient to sustain a finding of premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt." Ascarab argued multiple wounds and post-offense actions do not necessarily establish reflection and deliberation, and he urged the panel to avoid stacking inference upon inference to reach premeditation.
The state, represented by Margo Martin of the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, responded that jurors could reasonably infer deliberation from a combination of facts: the defendant drove to a secluded area, the vehicle had a removed temporary license plate, a firearm with an obliterated serial number was present, a passport was found in the car and cell-phone location data showed the device lingered at the site where the body was left. Martin characterized those items as an "evidentiary stack" that, taken together, supports a finding of premeditation.
Panel judges pressed both sides about specific factual links. A panel judge noted the record shows the victim was shot multiple times and asked whether the mistakes or gaps in the record (for example, the absence of testimony directly placing the shooting at Seward Park) undercut the state’s inference. Defense counsel pointed to trial testimony describing the gun’s presence in the console and argued there was no evidence the serial number was obliterated shortly before the offense.
The court also addressed a separate GR 37 claim alleging improper denial of a peremptory challenge. Martin read juror voir dire answers, noting Juror 82 stated only that she might have "difficulty giving credibility to witnesses who are heavy drug users," a response Martin said did not demonstrate actual bias. Ascarab countered that the transcript and the spreadsheet used at trial contained inconsistencies and that the combination of juror responses—together with limits on trial counsel’s questioning—could support actual bias and prejudice on appeal.
The judges asked procedural and evidentiary questions about a spreadsheet referenced in parties’ briefs; defense counsel sought leave to correct cell references so the court record and briefing align. Neither the panel nor counsel announced a decision from the bench at the conclusion of argument; the court moved on to the next case on the docket.
The panel heard extended exchanges over the permissibility of drawing inferences from circumstantial facts — for example, whether possession of a gun with an obliterated serial number and removal of a license plate reasonably suggest planning to avoid detection — and over the standard for when a misapplied peremptory challenge under GR 37 is harmful on appeal. The outcome will turn on how the panel evaluates the weight of stacked circumstantial evidence and whether the juror-record discrepancies and voir dire answers meet the applicable standard for relief.
No opinion was announced at the close of the argument; the court proceeded to the next matter on the calendar.
