Court of Appeals hears arguments in State v. Tenry over accomplice-liability evidence

The Division II Court of Appeals heard argument Monday in State of Washington v. Kathan Tenry, a criminal appeal focused on whether the evidence supports convictions based on accomplice liability and related sentencing enhancements.

Acting Chief Judge Eric Price opened the docket and the court listened to defense counsel Edward Wixler, of the Washington Appellate Project, and state counsel Brad Meager. Wixler told the court the convictions tied to the incidents involving Larson and Sergeant Finch "rest on insufficient evidence of accomplice liability" and urged reversal on the counts connected to those events.

Wixler emphasized legal limits on accomplice liability, telling the panel, "To be convicted as an accomplice, it is not enough that you are present at the scene where somebody else commits a crime." He said the record lacks evidence showing Tenry had "actual knowledge" that a co-participant would commit the charged shootings or that Tenry took steps to assist before the crimes were complete.

The state disputed that account. Brad Meager argued the jury could reasonably infer Tenry's knowledge and assistance from a pattern of conduct spanning an earlier Oregon carjacking and later events in Centralia. Meager described video frames and witness testimony and summarized the state's theory: "This is an enterprise with 2 guys working together to accomplish a goal," and Tenry's running toward his co-participant could be read as encouragement and assistance.

The judges pressed both sides about what specific facts would suffice to prove knowledge or assistance under existing precedents. Defense counsel acknowledged illustrative facts—handing a gun or actively aiding an armed participant—but said those facts do not appear in the record for the Larson- and Finch-related counts. The court took the matter under advisement at the close of argument.