SPOKANE — The Washington Court of Appeals, Division III, has affirmed the convictions of a Moses Lake man who was sentenced to 40 years in prison in connection with the death of a 22-year-old man outside of a Moses Lake fast food restaurant in 2015.

Jason Williams was previously found guilty of second-degree murder and three counts of first-degree assault in connection with the homicide of 22-year-old Christian Guerra in January 2015. Williams received a 40-year prison sentence and appealed his convictions.

A few hours before his death Guerra went to Neppel’s Dockside Pub, since renamed Midway Pub and under new ownership, with three other people to celebrate a friend’s birthday. Williams and his wife, Martha Mejia, were at the bar as well, but the two groups left after a fight broke out. Williams, who claimed he was being followed by a Ford Fusion, which Guerra was a passenger in, and Mejia drove to the Moses Lake Jack in the Box and went into the drive-thru lane.

The Fusion pulled up behind the Yukon, effectively blocking the vehicle in the drive-thru. The Yukon attempted to back up and the driver of the Fusion honked their horn. Mejia got out and confronted the occupants of the Fusion. Guerra and another male passenger in the Fusion then became involved in a physical fight with Williams. Guerra later became involved in a second fight with Williams and got back into the Fusion after the altercation.

Guerra got back out when Williams started walking toward the car with a pistol in his left hand, which he used to shoot and kill Guerra and fire shots at the Fusion. Williams’ appeal hinges on two claims, the first of which being his belief that the court made a mistake when instructing jurors that revenge does not constitute a self-defense claim.

“The first contention is that the trial court erred in giving the revenge instruction, with Mr. Williams arguing that it unduly limited his right to act in self-defense by focusing on the element of necessity. Since the record supported the instruction, the trial court did not abuse its discretion,” reads the decision.

Williams’ second claim relates to the prosecution’s closing argument at the end of his trial. Williams argued, which the appeals court judges admitted “quite correctly,” that the prosecution “erred in closing argument by challenging the jury to articulate any reasonable doubt it might be entertaining.”

The state admitted to the error, but argued it wasn't prejudicial toward Williams.

“In closing argument, the prosecutor told jurors that ‘if you can’t assign a reason to that doubt, if you can’t articulate or talk about what that doubt is, at that time you're beyond a reasonable doubt,’” reads the decision.

Williams’ defense attorney did not object to the statement, but the appeals court judges ruled erroneous statements like the one in question do not automatically constitute a conviction reversal.

“If defendant did not object at trial, the error is deemed waived unless the prosecutor’s misconduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that it could not have been neutralized by a curative instruction,” wrote Judge Kevin Korsmo.

“Although erroneous, the remark simply was not so flagrant that the fairness of this trial was impacted.”

Richard Byrd can be reached via email at city@columbiabasinherald.com.