EPHRATA — Family and friends of murder victim Lucille Moore have a little more closure, as a judge denied a mistrial motion from the defense attorney of convicted killer Chad Bennett on Tuesday.

Bennett, 27, of Ephrata, was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury on March 29 following about five weeks of trial proceedings. The jury also convicted Bennett of the two aggravating circumstances of acting with deliberate cruelty to Moore and knowing she “was particularly vulnerable or incapable of resistance.”

Bennett’s defense attorney, David Bustamante, filed a motion for a mistrial, arguing misconduct on behalf of Grant County Prosecutor Garth Dano and Deputy Prosecutor Ed Owens, who tried the case. During Tuesday morning’s hearing before Judge David Estudillo, Bustamante argued the prosecution “constantly” attempted bring up character evidence against his client and brought up facts that had not been admitted into evidence.

“I would argue that it was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that no curative instruction (given to the jury to correct an error) could have remedied those comments,” Bustamante remarked.

Bustamante also brought into question several statements and comments made during the trial by the prosecution which he believes were “highly prejudicial” to his client. Such statements, according to Bustamante, included: testimony about Bennett receiving food stamps and the affects of Bennett’s marijuana use on his memory and judgment while on the drug.

Bustamante also brought into question the prosecution, in his view, inaccurately representing expert testimony from the trial. He said an expert witness who testified about shoe impressions never testified that a shoe impression found at Moore’s house matched Bennett’s shoe size, despite the prosecution stating it did.

“The fact that they put that in a PowerPoint makes it highly prejudicial,” Bustamante remarked. “When you put something in writing in front of the jury, you put it up on a screen, that has a much more profound impact on the jury.”

Dano said Bennett himself opened the door to a number of the topics Bustamante presented, including the discussion regarding food stamps and marijuana usage.

“This marijuana use issue, the defendant himself raised that issue that he daily ingested that for a period of five to six years. He sounded rather proud of it,” Dano stated. “It affects his credibility. It affects his memory. It would be an inference to draw.”

Dano said when Bennett took the stand, the state had the right to challenge and demonstrate periods in which he was not believable and bring into question his overall credibility.

“So we feel that we conducted ourselves within the bounds of (what) the court cases have construed here in the State of Washington,” Dano remarked.

Estudillo sided with the state, ruling several of the issues Bustamante raised, such as food stamps and marijuana, were, as Dano stated, first brought up by the defendant. With regard to the shoe impression issue, Estudillo said the expert witness testified in generalities that Bennett’s shoes and the shoe impression at the scene showed similarities in terms of size. He said it wasn’t too far of a stretch for the state, during its closing argument, to infer Bennett left the impression.

Estudillo concluded by stating the real issue at hand is whether or not the arguments raised by the defense influenced the jury’s final decision. The judge found the issues did not influence the verdict. From Estudillo’s perceptive, the jury focused on Bennett’s own words during recorded conversations he had with his wife from the Grant County Jail.

“Those words are what the jury really focused on. It’s what the court focused on, quite frankly, when i was listening to the trial. It’s hard for Mr. Bennett to get away from his words and I think the jury focused on those words,” Estudillo said.

The judge was referencing a statement in which Bennett told his wife Trisha, “you know that I did it and you were there with me."

“I just think the jury took those words and said ‘we are going to focus on that as an admission.’”

Estudillo denied the motion for a mistrial. A date for sentencing was not set during Tuesday’s hearing.