Appeals Court Upholds Gun Conviction in SeaTac Case, Rejects Second Amendment Challenge

The Washington Court of Appeals on October 12 upheld Jose Mario Nash Jr.’s firearm conviction and sentence in a SeaTac case, rejecting his argument that a prior conviction for a nonviolent drug offense could not constitutionally bar him from possessing a gun.

The unanimous Division I decision also rejected challenges to the charging document, jury instructions, denial of two mistrial requests and use of juvenile adjudications in calculating his sentence.

A jury convicted Nash of first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm on May 16, 2024. His 47.5-month drug offender sentencing alternative includes 23.75 months of confinement and 23.75 months of community custody. 

According to the opinion, the investigation began on February 14, 2021, after a woman identified as K.R. reported that Nash had assaulted her and threatened her with a firearm. The two had been staying at the Rodeway Inn in SeaTac.

Three days later, on February 17, a King County sheriff’s detective saw Nash leave the motel driving a Cadillac with K.R. as a passenger. Other officers helped stop the car.

Nash repeatedly lowered his hands toward the driver’s seat despite commands to keep them raised, according to the opinion. After he got out, police saw a loaded, operable pistol on the seat.

At trial, Nash’s defense argued that he did not possess the gun and that K.R. had planted it to avoid being charged herself because a no-contact order protecting Nash prohibited her from possessing a weapon.

The appeals court cited officers’ testimony that they saw no movements by K.R. suggesting she tried to place the gun under Nash. It described the evidence supporting the firearm conviction as overwhelming.

Nash had stipulated that he had a prior cocaine-delivery conviction qualifying as a serious offense under Washington’s firearm law. He also agreed that he had received written and oral notice that he could not legally possess or control a firearm. 

In rejecting Nash’s Second Amendment challenge, the panel relied on earlier Washington appellate decisions upholding firearm restrictions for people with felony convictions. Those decisions did not distinguish between violent and nonviolent felonies, the court said.

The panel separately declined to address Nash’s argument that the restriction was unconstitutional because the underlying offense was a juvenile adjudication, saying he had not supported that argument with citations to legal authority.

Nash also challenged prosecutors’ questions to K.R. during trial. One asked whether members of his family had visited her home after the trial began. Another concerned her stay in YWCA housing for domestic violence victims.

The trial court found the challenged evidence more prejudicial than probative but denied both requests for a mistrial. 

Nash argued the family-visit question implied witness intimidation and the housing testimony improperly bolstered K.R.’s credibility.

The appeals court said K.R. did not testify that Nash sent his relatives or explain why they visited. 

It also noted that the trial court instructed jurors to disregard the housing testimony and that Nash had not objected to her earlier testimony identifying herself as a domestic violence victim. 

The panel also rejected Nash’s claim that the charging document and jury instruction omitted a required element: knowledge of his disqualifying conviction. 

Under the Washington statute at issue, the state had to prove knowing firearm possession and a qualifying prior conviction, but knowledge of that conviction was not an additional element, the court ruled.

On sentencing, Nash argued that his juvenile adjudications should have been excluded from his offender score. 

The panel said a 2023 amendment excluding most juvenile adjudications did not apply retroactively to his February 2021 offense. His sentence was governed by the law in effect when he committed the crime, the court ruled.

Acting Chief Judge Bill Bowman wrote the unpublished opinion, joined by Judges Tam Bui and Cecily Hazelrigg. The judgment under review was signed by King County Superior Court Judge William L. Dixon.