Personal Restraint Petition Of Sione P. Lui

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of
SIONEP. LUI,
Petitioner.
No. 72478-9-1 	o
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION 	u>
FILED: January 19, 2016 od 	-;:
Appelwick, J. — Lui filed this personal restraint petition challenging his
conviction for murder in the second degree. 	He seeks a 	new trial based on
ineffective assistance of counsel, violations of his 	rights of due process and
religious freedom, and prosecutorial and juror misconduct. 	In a supplement to
his 	petition, 	he argues for relief on 	the 	basis of newly discovered evidence.
Because Lui fails to establish any ground for relief, we deny his petition.
FACTS
On 	February 9, 2001, detectives found the body of Elaina Boussiacos,
Sione Lui's fiancee, in the trunk of her car in a parking lot. 	State v. Lui, 179
Wn.2d 457, 463-64, 315 P.3d 493, cert, denied, 134 S. Ct. 2842, 189 L. Ed. 2d
810 (2014). 	She had been strangled. 	\± at 465. 	In 2007, detectives reviewing
cold 	cases interviewed 	Lui again, 	ultimately charging him with murder in the
second 	degree. 	Id. 	at 	464. 	The 	late 	defense 	attorney 	Anthony 	Savage
represented Lui at trial.

No. 72478-9-1/2
At trial, the State called as a witness a "dog track" expert, who testified
that after smelling an article of Lui's clothing, bloodhounds followed a scent trail
from the parking lot where Boussiacos's car was found back to Lui's house. 	Id.
Deputy Denny Gulla, a detective who worked on Boussiacos's case, also testified
about the dog track evidence. 	The State presented DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)
evidence, along with circumstantial evidence that Boussiacos wanted to end their
volatile relationship and that Lui had motive and opportunity to kill her. 	Lui, 153
Wn. App. at 310-13. 	The State called witnesses who placed Boussiacos's car in
the parking lot as early as Saturday, the day before she was reported missing
and 	nearly a week before police discovered 	her body. 	The prosecutor also
attacked 	Lui's 	credibility, 	noting, 	for 	example, 	that 	he 	gave 	friends 	several
different accounts of his and Boussiacos's relationship and denied having sexual
intercourse with 	Boussiacos despite 	DNA evidence suggesting 	the 	contrary.
State v. Lui, 153 Wn. App. 304, 312-13, 221 P.3d 948 (2009), affd, 179 Wn.2d
457, 315 P.3d 493 (2014), cert, denied. 	134 S. 	Ct. 2842, 189 L. Ed. 2d 810
(2014).
The 	defense theory was that 	Boussiacos 	left the 	home 	on 	Saturday
morning and was killed by an unknown perpetrator. 	Counsel called Lui's friend
Sam Taumoefolau, who testified that Boussiacos's car was not in the parking lot
when 	he 	and 	Lui posted 	flyers 	in the 	area 	a 	few 	days 	after 	Boussiacos
disappeared. 	Defense counsel 	cast doubt on 	the 	DNA and 	other forensic
evidence. A jury convicted Lui as charged. 	Lui, 179 Wn.2d at 466.

No. 72478-9-1/3
Lui appealed to this court, which affirmed. 	Lui, 153 Wn. App. at 325. 	In
2014, our Supreme Court affirmed, transferring Lui's personal restraint petition to
this court. 	Lui, 179 Wn.2d at 498. 	On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court
denied certiorari. 	Lui v. Washington. 	U.S. 	, 134 S. Ct. 2842, 189 L. Ed. 2d
810(2014).
DISCUSSION
In order to obtain collateral relief by means of a personal restraint petition,
Lui must demonstrate either an error of constitutional magnitude that gives rise to
actual prejudice or a nonconstitutional error that "inherently results in a complete
miscarriage of justice." 	In re Pers. Restraint of Cook. 114 Wn.2d 802, 813, 792
P.2d 506 (1990). 	If a petitioner makes a prima facie showing of actual prejudice,
but the reviewing court cannot determine the merits of the claims solely on the
record, the court should remand for a full hearing on the merits or for a reference
hearing under RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12. 	In re Pers. Restraint of Rice, 118
Wn.2d 876, 885, 828 P.2d 1086 (1992). 	But "[tjhis does not mean that every set
of allegations which is not meritless on its face entitles a petitioner to a reference
hearing. 	Bald assertions and conclusory allegations will not support the holding
of a hearing." 	jd. 886. 	A petitioner "must state with particularity facts which, if
proven, would 	entitle him to 	relief and 	must show that he 	has "competent,
admissible evidence" to establish those facts. 	Jd.
I. 	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In his petition, Lui claims that trial counsel Savage's deficient performance
violated his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. 	To prevail on a

No. 72478-9-1/4
claim of ineffective 	assistance, 	Lui 	must 	show 	both that 	(1) his attorney's
representation 	fell below 	an 	objective 	standard 	of 	reasonableness, 	and 	(2)
resulting prejudice, that is, a reasonable probability that the result of the trial
would 	have 	been 	different 	absent the 	deficient 	performance. 	Strickland 	v.
Washington. 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 692, 	104 S. 	Ct. 	2052, 80 L. Ed. 	2d 674
(1984). 	The reviewing court "must make every effort to eliminate the distorting
effects of hindsight and must strongly presume that counsel's conduct constituted
sound trial strategy." 	Rice. 118 Wn.2d at 888-89. 	If one of the two prongs of the
test is absent, we need not inquire further. 	Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.
Lui makes several allegations of "general problems" with defense counsel.
He alleges that Savage "was not always alert" and "dozed off several times." 	Lui
contends that "Mr. Savage had a falling accident that caused him to deteriorate
significantly, both mentally and physically." 	Lui argues that these problems led to
errors during trial.
But, as Savage pointed out in a declaration, the trial judge was in an
excellent position to observe counsel during this lengthy trial. 	Yet there is no
indication in the record of any concern on the judge's part that Savage was falling
asleep or not alert enough to be effective. 	And, contrary to Lui's contention, the
court's decision to recess early one day during 	trial to allow Savage to seek
treatment for a knee injury does not support a claim of ineffective assistance.
Next, Lui faults Savage for failing to challenge the State's theory of the
case. 	He asserts that Savage failed to properly interview and then call to testify
several 	witnesses 	to 	impeach 	the 	State's 	witnesses. 	Lui 	contends 	that

No. 72478-9-1/5
Woodinville Athletic Club employee Amber Mathwig could have testified that she
did 	not 	see 	the 	victim's 	car 	in the 	parking 	lot until 	the 	Wednesday 	after
Boussiacos disappeared, contrary to another witness's testimony that the car
was in the lot as early as Saturday morning. 	He argues that Lui's friend, Paul
Finau, and Lui's sister, Falepaini Harris, would have also testified that they did
not see the car early in the week, and that they could have corroborated Sam
Taumoefolau's testimony about posting missing person flyers in the area of the
dog search. 	Lui argues further that the defense should have presented its own
expert witness on dog tracking, as Lui's family wished, in order to impeach the
State's expert.
Generally, the decision to call witnesses is a matter of trial tactics that will
not support an ineffective assistance claim. 	State v. Bvrd, 30 Wn. App. 794, 799,
638 P.2d 601 (1981). 	As he states in his declaration, counsel made a strategic
decision 	to 	follow 	his 	"general 	philosophy 	that 	it 	is 	preferable 	to 	explain
circumstances rather than to directly confront them." 	In this case, rather than set
up a direct confrontation by denying the possibility that the dog tracked Lui's path
from Boussiacos's car to his home, counsel explained that the dog tracked the
scent that Lui left in the area while posting flyers. 	The decision to avoid a "clash
of experts" is consistent with reasonable trial strategy. 	In re Pers. Restraint of
Khan. No. 89657-7, slip op. at 13 (Wash. Nov. 25, 2015). 	Moreover, Mathwig
told Savage before testifying that she had seen the car in the lot on Monday and
again on Wednesday. 	This information contradicted the defense investigator's
notes which reported that she first saw the car on Wednesday. 	This was not

No. 72478-9-1/6
favorable to the defense. 	It was not objectively unreasonable for Savage to
decide not to present witnesses whose testimony would be favorable to the State
or whose testimony would, at best, attempt to prove a negative.
Lui 	alleges 	further 	that 	Savage 	was 	ineffective 	for 	failing 	to 	present
evidence that Lui's arm injury "precluded him from committing the crime," for not
introducing evidence that Boussiacos's ex-husband committed the crime, and for
failing to "aggressively pursue[ ] impeachment information" about Deputy Gulla.
He establishes none of these claims.
In his declaration, Savage noted Lui's size and athletic ability, as well as
the 	possibility that Boussiacos was strangled with some kind of ligature. 	He
stated that an argument that Lui would not have had the strength to strangle the
much smaller Boussiacos "seemed tenuous, 	at best." 	Rather than help, 	he
viewed 	it as another example of evidence that could 	hurt by diminishing the
defense case.
Savage made a reasonable strategic decision that a proffer Boussiacos's
of ex-husband 	Negron 	as 	another suspect "was 	not 	legally colorable 	under
current case law," and, "even if admitted [that evidence] could have diminished
the defense case." 	Savage noted that Negron had an alibi, DNA evidence on a
shoelace 	could 	have 	come 	from 	either 	Negron 	or 	the 	son 	he 	had 	with
Boussiacos, and no evidence suggested a motive for killing his son's mother.
Finally, 	Lui 	does 	not show 	either 	deficient 	performance 	or 	prejudice
related to Savage's alleged failure to impeach Gulla's credibility. 	Before trial, the
State moved 	to exclude evidence of disciplinary actions 	against Gulla. 	Lui

No. 72478-9-1/7
argues 	that 	"Gulla's 	tenuous 	status with [King 	County Sheriff's Office] 	goes
directly to his motivation to trump up a case against Lui." 	He contends that
Savage should have impeached Gulla for bias as well as previous dishonesty.
But, 	as 	Savage 	knew, 	findings 	of 	Gulla's 	misconduct 	that 	were 	related 	to
dishonesty were more than 20 years old, and Savage told the trial court, "I don't
see any nexus between the alleged misconduct of Detective Gulla [in] other
cases and this 	case." 	The 	record 	indicates, 	however, 	that Savage did 	not
overlook or ignore Gulla's past misconduct. 	Savage expressly put the court and
the 	prosecutor 	on 	notice that 	if 	the 	State 	attempted 	to 	portray Gulla 	as
particularly experienced or expert, Savage would consider the door opened to
Gulla's entire history. 	Lui counters that "[i]f that was indeed Savage's strategy
then he failed miserably in pursuing it," given his own questions that elicited facts
about Gulla's training and experience. 	But, Lui does not show how Savage's
decisions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or prejudiced him.
Matters that go to trial strategy or tactics do not show deficient performance, and
Lui bears the burden of establishing there were no legitimate strategic or tactical
reasons behind his attorney's choices. 	State v. Rainev, 107 Wn. App. 129, 135-
36, 28 P.3d 10 (2001). 	Lui's speculation and conjecture based on Gulla's alleged
actions in other matters, without more, does not meet that burden or overcome
the presumption that counsel's strategic decisions in his case were reasonable.
Lui also claims that Savage was ineffective for failing to object to several
instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. 	He asserts that "the prosecutor
argued, without evidence, that the defendant committed a sexual assault." 	He

No. 72478-9-1/8
argues that the State elicited opinion testimony from officers that Lui lied, and
that he "showed his guilt by failing to act like an aggrieved fiancee [sic]." And, he
alleges that the 	prosecutor violated 	Lui's constitutional 	rights 	by questioning
Taumoefolau about the Mormon religious beliefs he and Lui shared.
The decision to object, or to refrain from objecting even if testimony is not
admissible, is a tactical decision not to highlight the evidence to the jury. 	State v.
Madison, 	53 Wn. 	App. 	754, 763, 770 P.2d 662 (1989). 	"Only in egregious
circumstances, on testimony central to the State's case, will the failure to object
constitute incompetence of counsel justifying reversal." 	jd, 	Lui maintained that
he had not had sex with Boussiacos for weeks, a claim contradicted by evidence
of Lui's DNA on 	Boussiacos's underwear and in the vaginal wash taken from
Boussiacos's body. 	Lui, 179 Wn.2d at 466; Lui, 153 Wn. App. at 312. 	Refraining
from 	lodging 	an 	objection 	that 	could 	have 	highlighted 	the 	inconsistencies
between Lui's statements and the evidence was a reasonable tactical decision.
While Savage did not object to the detectives' testimony about Lui's truthfulness
and response to news of the victim's death, Savage impeached the detectives'
conclusions and inconsistent statements during cross-examination.
As for Lui's claim of that his right to religious freedom was violated, he
does not show how he suffered prejudice from Savage's failure to object to the
State's questions to Taumoefolau. 	The Washington Constitution guarantees that
no person shall "be questioned 	in any 	court of justice touching 	his religious
beliefs to affect the weight of his testimony." Wash. Const, art. I, § 11. Here, the
State's 	questions 	highlighted 	an 	area 	of 	disagreement 	between 	Lui 	and
8

No. 72478-9-1/9
Boussiacos and were relevant to Lui's activities during the weekend Boussiacos
disappeared. 	They did not touch on Taumoefolau's "religious beliefs to affect the
weight of his testimony." 	Id. 	And, contrary to Lui's assertion, they were not
analogous to the prosecutor's improper injection of racial stereotypes in State v.
Monday. 171 Wn.2d 667, 257 P.3d 551 (2011).
Finally, 	Lui contends that counsel was ineffective for failing 	to 	request
additional 	DNA testing. 	In 	his 	declaration, 	however, 	Savage 	describes 	a
reasonable tactical decision:
The DNA testing and results provided by the State indicated the
presence 	of 	the 	defendant's 	semen 	in the victim's 	vagina 	and
underwear. 	Partial profiles of the victim's husband and/or son were
also detected on the victim's shoes. 	The presence of unidentified
male profiles in any of these samples allowed me to argue that we
don't know who else had 	been 	in contact with 	the victim 	(thus
leaving 	behind 	his 	unidentified 	DNA 	profile) 	and, 	therefore, 	a
reasonable 	doubt 	existed 	as 	to 	who 	killed 	her. 	Had 	I taken
additional 	steps 	to 	have 	the 	unidentified 	DNA 	results 	further
analyzed, there was a 	high probability that none of them would
have matched each other, thereby weakening the argument that
the unidentified male profiles belonged to the real killer. If the blood
on the stick shift and the unidentified male profiles on the steering
wheel, 	vaginal 	swabs, 	and 	the 	shoe 	laces 	did 	not 	match 	one
another, then any argument that another person committed this
crime would be severely weakened.
Lui does not establish any claim of ineffective assistance.
II. 	Prosecutorial Misconduct
Next, Lui contends that prosecutorial misconduct violated his constitutional
rights. 	He raises an argument under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct.
1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), that the prosecution violated his due process
rights by failing 	to 	provide 	impeachment information about 	Gulla. 	And, he

No. 72478-9-1/10
maintains that the prosecutor's questions about Taumoefolau's religion violated
Lui's constitutional rights.
In Brady, the United States Supreme Court held that due process requires
the State to disclose evidence that is favorable to the defendant and material
either to guilt or punishment. 	Id at 87. 	This includes material impeachment
evidence. 	State v. Knutson. 	121 	Wn.2d 766, 771-72, 854 P.2d 617 (1993).
Evidence is material if there is a "'reasonable probability that, had the evidence
been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.'" 	id. at 772 (quoting Rjce, 118 Wn.2d at 887). 	"'Wrapped up in this
standard 	of 	materiality 	are 	issues 	of 	admissibility; 	if evidence 	is 	neither
admissible nor likely to lead to admissible evidence[,] it is unlikely that disclosure
of the evidence could affect the outcome of a proceeding.'" jd. at 773. 	Here, Lui
does not show a 	reasonable probability that even admissible evidence about
Gulla's alleged past misconduct would have changed the outcome of the trial.
Because he does not show that the additional evidence was material, he does
not establish grounds for relief under Brady.
Defense counsel did not object to the 	prosecutor's allegedly improper
questions about religion. 	Therefore, Lui has waived this claim of error unless he
can show that the prosecutor committed misconduct that was "so flagrant and ill
intentioned that an 	instruction could 	not have cured the 	resulting 	prejudice."
State v. Emery. 174 Wn.2d 741, 760-61, 278 Wn.3d 653 (2012). 	Lui must show
both (1) that "no curative instruction would have obviated any prejudicial effect on
the jury" and (2) that the misconduct resulted in prejudice that "had a substantial
10

No. 72478-9-1/11
likelihood of affecting the jury verdict." State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 455,
258 P.3d 43 (2011). 	Because Lui shows neither, his claim fails.
III. 	Juror Misconduct
Lui also alleges that juror misconduct violated his constitutional right to an
impartial jury. 	He presents a declaration from 	investigator Denise Scaffidi, in
which Scaffidi reported that she learned from juror Clare Comins that the jury
considered 	extrinsic 	information 	based 	on 	one 	juror's 	purported 	personal
knowledge of the area around the crime scene. 	According to Scaffidi, Comins
stated that during deliberations, a female juror said that Lui and Taumoefolau
could not have placed leaflets at the mall in Woodinville because that mall had
not yet been built. 	Scaffidi alleges that Comins believed that "jurors discussed
this 	information 	during 	deliberations 	and 	that 	it 	reflected 	poorly 	on 	Mr.
Taumoefolau's testimony." 	However, Comins refused to sign a declaration to
that effect. 	The trial court denied defense counsel's request for access to the
other jurors' contact information. 	Lui argues that this court should remand for an
evidentiary hearing for purposes of questioning all the jurors about Comins's
statements.
A criminal 	defendant is constitutionally entitled to a fair trial before an
unbiased and unprejudiced jury. 	State v. Jackson, 75 Wn. App. 537, 543, 879
P.2d 307 (1994). 	Jurors are expected to bring their opinions, insights, common
sense, and everyday life experiences to their deliberations. 	State v. Briggs, 55
Wn. App. 44, 58, 776 P.2d 1347 (1989). 	A juror's introduction of specialized or
expert 	knowledge, 	however, 	may 	be 	grounds 	for 	a 	new 	trial, 	jd. 	at 	59.
11

No. 72478-9-1/12
Generally, however, in evaluating a claim of juror misconduct, a court may not
consider matters that inhere in the verdict. 	State v. Jackman, 113 Wn.2d 772,
777, 783 P.2d 580 (1989). 	This includes the mental processes, both individual
and collective, by which jurors reach their conclusions, 	jd. at 777-78. 	Even if
Comins or other jurors were willing and available to submit declarations, their
statements would likely be inadmissible as pertaining to matters inhering in the
verdict. 	And, 	the 	alleged 	statements 	themselves 	are 	based 	on 	the juror's
everyday life experiences, not the product of specialized knowledge or outside
sources.
An evidentiary hearing is not warranted in a collateral challenge if the
defendant fails to allege facts that establish prejudice. 	Rice, 118 Wn.2d at 889.
Here, the alleged extrinsic evidence may impeach one portion of Taumoefolau's
testimony. 	But, it does not tend to disprove the defense theory that Lui and
Taumoefolau posted flyers near where the victim's body was found and that this
explains why bloodhounds tracked Lui's scent in the area. 	Therefore, Lui does
not show actual prejudice. 	He fails to establish grounds for relief.
IV. 	Newly Discovered Evidence
In 2001, crime scene investigators found a blood stain on the stick shift
"skirt" of Boussiacos's car. 	Two years after trial, in 2010, the Washington State
Patrol Crime Laboratory matched the DNA from this blood sample to Sandro M.
Enciso, who later changed his name to Alesandro Biagi. 	On November 4, 2013,
police questioned Biagi.
12

No. 72478-9-1/13
Biagi had moved to Washington around 1992. 	He held a number of jobs
in the Seattle area, mostly related to automobiles. 	He worked at dealerships and
auto detailing shops, and also had a side business buying, detailing, and selling
cars on his own. 	When detectives showed Biagi a picture of Boussiacos, he was
"100 percent" certain he 	had 	seen her somewhere before, but could not say
where. 	He denied murdering her. 	In a later conversation with a detective, he
opined that he probably worked on her car. 	He stated that he did not recognize
Lui.
In a 	supplement to 	his 	personal 	restraint 	petition, 	Lui contends 	that
evidence of the DNA match is grounds for a 	new trial. 	He argues that the
evidence 	"is 	certainly 	material 	because 	it 	points 	to 	a 	specific, 	alternate
perpetrator" 	who 	"has 	no 	innocent 	explanation" 	for 	leaving 	his 	blood 	in
Boussiacos's car.
Newly discovered evidence is grounds for relief in a 	personal restraint
petition if those facts, "in the interest of justice," require vacation of the conviction
or sentence. 	RAP 16.4(c)(3). 	To warrant this relief, this evidence would have
been admissible at trial and would have probably changed the outcome. 	In re
Pers. Restraint of Jeffries. 114 Wn.2d 485, 493, 789 P.2d 731 (1990). 	To prevail
here, Lui must show that the evidence: 	"'(1) will probably change the result of the
trial; 	(2) was discovered since the trial; 	(3) could 	not have been discovered
before trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) is material; and (5) is not merely
cumulative or impeaching.'" 	In re Pers. Restraint of Lord, 123 Wn.2d 296, 319-
20, 868 P.2d 835 (1994) (quoting State v. Williams. 96 Wn.2d 215, 223, 634 P.2d
13

No. 72478-9-1/14
868 (1981)). 	The absence of any one of these five factors justifies the denial of a
new trial. State v. Macon. 128 Wn.2d 784, 800, 911 P.2d 1004 (1996).
Washington courts have long followed the rule that in order to present
evidence 	suggesting 	another 	suspect 	committed 	the 	charged 	offense, 	the
defendant must show "such a train of facts or circumstances as tend clearly to
point out some one besides the prisoner as the guilty party." 	State v. Downs.
168 Wash. 664, 667, 13 P.2d 1 (1932). 	In other words, "some combination of
facts or circumstances must point to a nonspeculative link between the other
suspect and the charged crime." 	State v. Franklin. 180 Wn.2d 371, 381, 325
P.3d 159 (2014). 	"Mere evidence of motive in another party, or motive coupled
with threats of such other person, 	is inadmissible, 	unless coupled with other
evidence tending to connect such other person with the actual commission of the
crime charged." 	State v. Kwan. 174 Wash. 528, 533, 25 P.2d 104 (1933). 	The
evidence 	must show "some step taken 	by the third 	party that indicates 	an
intention to act" on the motive or opportunity. 	State v. Rehak, 67 Wn. App. 157,
163, 834 P.2d 651 (1992). 	The defendant must lay a foundation establishing a
clear nexus between the other person and the crime. 	State v. Condon, 72 Wn.
App. 	638, 	647, 	865 	P.2d 	521 	(1993). 	The defendant 	bears the 	burden of
showing that the other suspect evidence is admissible. 	State v. Pacheco, 107
Wn.2d 59, 67, 726 P.2d 981 (1986).
Lui does not carry this burden here. 	He establishes no nexus between
Biagi and the crime—no motive, threat, or step taken that would indicate any
intention on Biagi's part to act on any opportunity. 	Because Lui does not show
14

No. 72478-9-1/15
that this "other suspect" DNA evidence is admissible, 	he 	cannot show that it
would have changed the outcome of his trial. 	For the same reason, he does not
establish his claim that Savage was ineffective for not seeking additional DNA
testing. 	Speculation 	and 	conjecture 	based 	upon 	a 	small 	amount 	of 	DNA
deposited in the victim's car by a person who has held several Seattle-area jobs
selling and detailing automobiles does not justify relief here.
We deny the petition.
WE CONCUR:
jL~^.J. OzftA-
15