nonconstitutional harmless error in Washington

2026We apply the nonconstitutional harmless error standard, under which the defendant must show that “‘within reasonable probabilities . . . the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected’ had the error not occurred.” State v. Barry, 183 Wn.2d 297, 317-18 , 352 P.3d 161 (2015) (quoting State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 725 P.2d 951 (1986)).

2026We apply the nonconstitutional harmless error standard, under which the defendant must show that “‘within reasonable probabilities . . . the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected’ had the error not occurred.” State v. Barry, 183 Wn.2d 297, 317-18 , 352 P.3d 161 (2015) (quoting State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 725 P.2d 951 (1986)).

2026We apply the nonconstitutional harmless error standard, under which the defendant must show that “‘within reasonable probabilities . . . the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected’ had the error not occurred.” State v. Barry, 183 Wn.2d 297, 317-18 , 352 P.3d 161 (2015) (quoting State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 725 P.2d 951 (1986)).

2026We apply the nonconstitutional harmless error standard, under which the defendant must show that “‘within reasonable probabilities . . . the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected’ had the error not occurred.” State v. Barry, 183 Wn.2d 297, 317-18 , 352 P.3d 161 (2015) (quoting State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 725 P.2d 951 (1986)).

2025Under the nonconstitutional harmless error test, this court’s task is to determine whether it is reasonably probable that “had the error not occurred, the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected.” State v. Cunningham, 93 Wn.2d 823, 831 , 613 P.2d 1139 (1980).

2025Under the nonconstitutional harmless error test, this court’s task is to determine whether it is reasonably probable that “had the error not occurred, the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected.” State v. Cunningham, 93 Wn.2d 823, 831 , 613 P.2d 1139 (1980).

2026App. 59, 69 , 339 P.3d 983 (2014), review denied, 182 Wn.2d 1027 (2015)). “‘The improper admission of evidence constitutes harmless error if the evidence is of minor significance in reference to the overall, overwhelming evidence as a whole.’” Id. (quoting State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wn.2d 389, 403 , 945 P.2d 1120 (1997)).

2019In any event, evidentiary error is not grounds for reversal unless it results in prejudice.16 "In analyzing the erroneous admission of evidence in violation of ER 404(b), we apply the nonconstitutional harmless error standard."17 This standard requires us to decide whether there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different absent the error.15 Because the jury acquitted Jefferson of assault, there is no reasonable probability the jury 14 Maqers, 164 Wn.2d at 194 . 15 Maqers, 164 Wn.2d at 194 . 16 State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wn.2d 389, 403 , 945 P.2d 1120 (1997

2015State v. Greer, 62 Wn.

2001State v. Greer, 62 Wn.

2025If the decision to admit the evidence was in error, we then apply the nonconstitutional harmless standard of review and consider if it is reasonably probable that “the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected had the error not occurred.” State v. Slocum, 183 Wn.

2025App. 438, 456 , 333 P.3d 541 (2014). “[W]e can affirm the trial court’s ruling on any grounds the record and the law support.” State v. Grier, 168 Wn.

2026App. 59, 69 , 339 P.3d 983 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Calegar, 133 Wn.2d 718, 727 , 947 P.2d 235 (1997)).

2020Calegar, 133 Wn.2d at 727 .

2026Under the nonconstitutional harmless error standard, 14 State of Washington v. Ahmed Mohamud Wasuge, No. 103530-6 Wasuge is not entitled to a new trial unless he shows that “‘within reasonable probabilities, had the error not occurred, the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected.’” State v. Goggin, 185 Wn.

2026Under the nonconstitutional harmless error standard, Graves is not entitled to a new trial unless he shows that “‘within reasonable probabilities, had the error not occurred, the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected.’” State v. Wasuge, ___ Wn.3d ___, 582 P.3d 320 , 327 (2026) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Goggin, 185 Wn.

2024“The nonconstitutional harmless error test requires the defendant to show a reasonable probability that the error materially affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Jennings, 14 Wn.

2024“The nonconstitutional harmless error test requires the defendant to show a reasonable probability that the error materially affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Jennings, 14 Wn.

2024Rivers, 129 Wn.2d at 706 .

2020State v. Rivers, 129 Wn.2d 697, 706 , 921 P.2d 495 (1996).

2022We analyze the erroneous admission of evidence in 25 No. 99396-3 (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting) violation of ER 404(b) under the nonconstitutional harmless error standard, asking whether, “‘within reasonable probabilities, had the error not occurred, the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected.’” State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 725 P.2d 951 (1986) (quoting State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 689, 695 , 689 P.2d 76 (1984)); Gresham, 173 Wn.2d at 433 .

2022We analyze the erroneous admission of evidence in 25 No. 99396-3 (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting) violation of ER 404(b) under the nonconstitutional harmless error standard, asking whether, “‘within reasonable probabilities, had the error not occurred, the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected.’” State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 725 P.2d 951 (1986) (quoting State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 689, 695 , 689 P.2d 76 (1984)); Gresham, 173 Wn.2d at 433 .

2021Jaquez, 105 Wn.

2015State v. Jaquez, 105 Wn.

2014State v. Morales, 173 Wn.2d 560, 582 , 269 P.3d 263 (2012).

2014State v. Morales, 173 Wn.2d 560, 582 , 269 P.3d 263 (2012).

2001State v. Greer, 62 Wash.App. 779 , 790 n. 4, 815 P.2d 295 (1991); State v. Clark, 48 Wash.App. 850, 863 , 743 P.2d 822 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1015 (1987). 89 Wash.App. at 417, 948 P.2d 882 .

2001State v. Greer, 62 Wash.App. 779 , 790 n. 4, 815 P.2d 295 (1991); State v. Clark, 48 Wash.App. 850, 863 , 743 P.2d 822 , review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1015 (1987). 89 Wash.App. at 417, 948 P.2d 882 .

2026App. 2d 26 , 34, 504 P.3d 233 (2022).

2026App. 59, 69 , 339 P.3d 983 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Calegar, 133 Wn.2d 718, 727 , 947 P.2d 235 (1997)).

2026State v. Kindell, 181 Wn.

2025State v. Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630, 642 , 41 P.3d 1159 (2002). 15 No. 59027-1-II When a court admits evidence in violation of ER 404(b), “we apply the nonconstitutional harmless error standard.” State v. Gunderson, 181 Wn.2d 916, 926 , 337 P.3d 1090 (2014).

2025State v. Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630, 642 , 41 P.3d 1159 (2002). 15 No. 59027-1-II When a court admits evidence in violation of ER 404(b), “we apply the nonconstitutional harmless error standard.” State v. Gunderson, 181 Wn.2d 916, 926 , 337 P.3d 1090 (2014).

2025App. 438, 456 , 333 P.3d 541 (2014). “[W]e can affirm the trial court’s ruling on any grounds the record and the law support.” State v. Grier, 168 Wn.

2024App. 2d 564 , 575, 537 P.3d 1091 (2023), review denied, 544 P.3d 29 (2024) (quoting Gunderson, 181 Wn.2d at 926 ).

2024Applying the nonconstitutional harmless error standard, Justice Gordon McCloud explained that the admission of “four hearsay complaints” likely affected the trial’s outcome because “[t]he State’s entire case revolved around the credibility of [the victim’s] testimony” and the State used the disclosure testimony “as substantive evidence to bolster [the victim’s] credibility.” Id.

2024Furthermore, case law established that “‘[r]epetition generally is not a valid test 17 No. 58109-4-II of veracity.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Purdom, 106 Wn.2d 745, 750 , 725 P.2d 622 (1986)).

2024Furthermore, case law established that “‘[r]epetition generally is not a valid test 17 No. 58109-4-II of veracity.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Purdom, 106 Wn.2d 745, 750 , 725 P.2d 622 (1986)).

2024Furthermore, case law established that “‘[r]epetition generally is not a valid test 17 No. 58109-4-II of veracity.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Purdom, 106 Wn.2d 745, 750 , 725 P.2d 622 (1986)).

2024App. 2d 779, 792 , 474 P.3d 599 (2020), vacated in part on other grounds, 199 Wn.2d 53 , 502 P.3d 1255 (2022).

2023We agree that the constitutional harmless error standard applies here, and we acknowledge “that . . . the systemic control of persons of color remains in society, particularly within the criminal justice system.” State v. Jackson, 195 Wn.2d 841, 851 , 467 P.3d 97 (2020).

2023We agree that the constitutional harmless error standard applies here, and we acknowledge “that . . . the systemic control of persons of color remains in society, particularly within the criminal justice system.” State v. Jackson, 195 Wn.2d 841, 851 , 467 P.3d 97 (2020).