Defense tells Court of Appeals presence alone isn't enough to convict Tenry as an accomplice

At oral argument, Edward Wixler, appellate counsel for Kathan Tenry, urged the Division II panel to reverse convictions tied to two shootings on the ground the evidence does not meet Washington's accomplice-liability standard.

Wixler argued the prosecution's theory improperly treats mere presence and post‑shooting behavior as evidence of knowledge or intent. "To be convicted as an accomplice, it is not enough that you are present at the scene where somebody else commits a crime," he told the court, stressing the need for proof of actual knowledge that the principal intended the specific charged offense.

He compared the record to State v. Sarasad and State v. Cronin, cases where driving conduct and direct facilitation allowed inferences of knowledge; Wixler said the Tenry record lacks similar facilitating conduct such as handing a weapon or actively assisting before shots were fired. He also flagged the timing issue: assistance must occur before the crime's completion, and reactions after shots are fired cannot supply prior knowledge or assistance.