Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
July 8, 2025
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 59248-7-II
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CHRISTOPHER LEGER,
Appellant.
CHE, J. — Christopher Leger appeals his conviction for a felony violation of a court
order—domestic violence. Leger argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his
attorney failed to object to inadmissible hearsay evidence that violated his right of confrontation.
We hold that Leger’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because he cannot show
prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS
On an early morning in August 2020, Deputy Dillon Helser responded to TF’s report of a
“physical disturbance” with Leger at a campsite. Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 124. Based on past
contacts with TF and Leger, Deputy Helser knew that they were dating. Deputy Helser
confirmed there was a no contact order (NCO) in place—issued in February 2020 and expiring
five years from the issuance date—that prohibited Leger from having contact with TF. In
relevant part, the NCO stated, “do not contact the protected person, directly, indirectly, in person No. 59248-7-II
or through others . . . [and] do not knowingly enter, remain, or come within 250 [feet] of the
protected person’s residence.” Ex. 2 at 2.
As Deputy Helser drove toward the campsite, he saw Leger walking down the road with
some of his belongings. Deputy Helser stopped to ask Leger what had occurred. Leger
acknowledged that he was aware of the NCO. He explained that he lived at the campsite, that TF
had come to the campsite, that TF often came to the site to bring supplies, and that he just
wanted to get away from her.
Deputy Helser arrested Leger, and the State charged Leger with one count of a felony
violation of a court order—domestic violence. Deputy Helser proceeded to the campsite and
located TF’s van there. Officers interviewed TF. TF refused to give a written or audio recorded
statement because she “hated cops,” so Deputy Helser prepared a police report with relevant
information TF provided to law enforcement, including TF’s quoted statements.1 RP at 172.
At trial, TF testified that she and Leger were “lovers” and that they had been together for
“[t]hree, five years.” RP at 159. She explained that in August 2020, she and Leger had been
living together at the campsite “[o]ff and on.” RP at 160. When questioned whether she and
Leger were together in 2020 and living at the campsite, TF stated, “I’m sure, yeah.” RP at 163.
TF recalled speaking with law enforcement about the August contact. But when asked
whether she remembered telling the police that she and Leger could not be apart and needed each
other, TF stated, “Not really. I don’t remember anything about that.” RP at 161. When asked
1 The police report was marked as an exhibit but not admitted as evidence. It is not part of the record on appeal.
2 No. 59248-7-II
whether she remembered telling the police that she had been arguing with Leger over her broken
CD player, TF stated, “No.” RP at 162. When asked whether she remembered talking to law
enforcement, TF stated, “Sort of. Not really.” RP at 163. Shortly thereafter, she invoked her
Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. When defense counsel asked TF whether she had any
recollection of the August incident, she again invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain
silent. The State then informed the trial court that it “would not ask that [TF] be subject to
recall,” and the court released TF.
After the court released TF, the State began to lay foundation for TF’s oral statements
made to Deputy Helser during the contact as a recorded recollection under ER 803(a)(5). The
State recalled Deputy Helser, who then testified that TF stated she and Leger had been “dating
for some time” and had been sleeping together in the van. RP at 173. Deputy Helser also
testified that TF stated she and Leger had fought that morning over a broken CD player of hers
and that she believed Leger owed her money because of the damage. In addition, TF told
Deputy Helser that she and Leger could not be apart and needed each other. Leger did not object
to this portion of Deputy Helser’s testimony.
Leger testified that when Deputy Helser contacted him in August 2020, he had no car and
had been living at the campsite for about four months. While Leger lived there, TF showed up
unexpectedly a few times, and when she did so, Leger would usually “take off.”2 RP at 182. In
this instance, TF drove to the campsite around dinnertime the night before. Leger then walked
2 TF would drop off clean clothes, food, water, and other supplies. Sometimes, TF would show up at the campsite while Leger was away, and she would leave before he got back.
3 No. 59248-7-II
away from the campsite and went to a lookout spot to watch the site while waiting for TF to
leave.
Leger “really didn’t know what else to do. [He] didn’t really want [TF] to go away.”
RP at 184. Leger eventually returned to the campsite due to hunger. “And then [TF] came out
[of her van] and said something, and I don’t remember exactly what happened. I walked over to
[TF’s] van where she was at and to get blankets or something, and [ ] -- I started yelling at her,
‘Why [do] you keep doing this to me? You got to go. Get the f[**]k out of here.’” RP at 184.
Leger then began to state, “[A]t that point, I leaned over her,” but his counsel interrupted Leger
to ask a question. RP at 185.
Leger then testified, “Because [I was] grabbing the blankets, I also grabbed my tablet that
[TF] had taken before. I saw that laying on the floor, and I grabbed that.” RP at 185. When
cross-examined about his contact with Deputy Helser, the following exchange occurred:
[STATE:] In fact, you told Deputy Helser that you were trying to get away from [TF] because she was going crazy on you?
[LEGER:] When she’s screaming and yelling, saying she’s going to call the cops and have me arrested and turn in jail . . . Yeah, I would call that freaking out. She’s throwing my stuff all over. I mean, yeah, I got the heck out of there.
[STATE:] In fact, you pointed at your neck and said [TF] had grabbed you by the throat?
[LEGER:] She may have. I know she slapped me once when I was trying to get over there, trying to get over the top of her. She was trying to smack a cigarette out of my mouth or something, and she smacked me.
RP at 186.
4 No. 59248-7-II
The jury found Leger guilty of a felony violation of a court order—domestic violence.
Leger appeals.
ANALYSIS
Leger contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed
to object to TF’s statements on both hearsay and confrontation clause grounds. We disagree that
counsel provided ineffective assistance.
A. Legal Principles
Criminal defendants have a right to effective assistance of counsel. U.S. CONST. amend.
VI; WASH. CONST. art. I, § 22.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both
deficient performance and resulting prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104
S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). Counsel’s performance is deficient if it falls below an
objective standard of reasonableness. State v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
July 8, 2025
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 59248-7-II
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CHRISTOPHER LEGER,
Appellant.
CHE, J. — Christopher Leger appeals his conviction for a felony violation of a court
order—domestic violence. Leger argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his
attorney failed to object to inadmissible hearsay evidence that violated his right of confrontation.
We hold that Leger’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because he cannot show
prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS
On an early morning in August 2020, Deputy Dillon Helser responded to TF’s report of a
“physical disturbance” with Leger at a campsite. Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 124. Based on past
contacts with TF and Leger, Deputy Helser knew that they were dating. Deputy Helser
confirmed there was a no contact order (NCO) in place—issued in February 2020 and expiring
five years from the issuance date—that prohibited Leger from having contact with TF. In
relevant part, the NCO stated, “do not contact the protected person, directly, indirectly, in person No. 59248-7-II
or through others . . . [and] do not knowingly enter, remain, or come within 250 [feet] of the
protected person’s residence.” Ex. 2 at 2.
As Deputy Helser drove toward the campsite, he saw Leger walking down the road with
some of his belongings. Deputy Helser stopped to ask Leger what had occurred. Leger
acknowledged that he was aware of the NCO. He explained that he lived at the campsite, that TF
had come to the campsite, that TF often came to the site to bring supplies, and that he just
wanted to get away from her.
Deputy Helser arrested Leger, and the State charged Leger with one count of a felony
violation of a court order—domestic violence. Deputy Helser proceeded to the campsite and
located TF’s van there. Officers interviewed TF. TF refused to give a written or audio recorded
statement because she “hated cops,” so Deputy Helser prepared a police report with relevant
information TF provided to law enforcement, including TF’s quoted statements.1 RP at 172.
At trial, TF testified that she and Leger were “lovers” and that they had been together for
“[t]hree, five years.” RP at 159. She explained that in August 2020, she and Leger had been
living together at the campsite “[o]ff and on.” RP at 160. When questioned whether she and
Leger were together in 2020 and living at the campsite, TF stated, “I’m sure, yeah.” RP at 163.
TF recalled speaking with law enforcement about the August contact. But when asked
whether she remembered telling the police that she and Leger could not be apart and needed each
other, TF stated, “Not really. I don’t remember anything about that.” RP at 161. When asked
1 The police report was marked as an exhibit but not admitted as evidence. It is not part of the record on appeal.
2 No. 59248-7-II
whether she remembered telling the police that she had been arguing with Leger over her broken
CD player, TF stated, “No.” RP at 162. When asked whether she remembered talking to law
enforcement, TF stated, “Sort of. Not really.” RP at 163. Shortly thereafter, she invoked her
Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. When defense counsel asked TF whether she had any
recollection of the August incident, she again invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain
silent. The State then informed the trial court that it “would not ask that [TF] be subject to
recall,” and the court released TF.
After the court released TF, the State began to lay foundation for TF’s oral statements
made to Deputy Helser during the contact as a recorded recollection under ER 803(a)(5). The
State recalled Deputy Helser, who then testified that TF stated she and Leger had been “dating
for some time” and had been sleeping together in the van. RP at 173. Deputy Helser also
testified that TF stated she and Leger had fought that morning over a broken CD player of hers
and that she believed Leger owed her money because of the damage. In addition, TF told
Deputy Helser that she and Leger could not be apart and needed each other. Leger did not object
to this portion of Deputy Helser’s testimony.
Leger testified that when Deputy Helser contacted him in August 2020, he had no car and
had been living at the campsite for about four months. While Leger lived there, TF showed up
unexpectedly a few times, and when she did so, Leger would usually “take off.”2 RP at 182. In
this instance, TF drove to the campsite around dinnertime the night before. Leger then walked
2 TF would drop off clean clothes, food, water, and other supplies. Sometimes, TF would show up at the campsite while Leger was away, and she would leave before he got back.
3 No. 59248-7-II
away from the campsite and went to a lookout spot to watch the site while waiting for TF to
leave.
Leger “really didn’t know what else to do. [He] didn’t really want [TF] to go away.”
RP at 184. Leger eventually returned to the campsite due to hunger. “And then [TF] came out
[of her van] and said something, and I don’t remember exactly what happened. I walked over to
[TF’s] van where she was at and to get blankets or something, and [ ] -- I started yelling at her,
‘Why [do] you keep doing this to me? You got to go. Get the f[**]k out of here.’” RP at 184.
Leger then began to state, “[A]t that point, I leaned over her,” but his counsel interrupted Leger
to ask a question. RP at 185.
Leger then testified, “Because [I was] grabbing the blankets, I also grabbed my tablet that
[TF] had taken before. I saw that laying on the floor, and I grabbed that.” RP at 185. When
cross-examined about his contact with Deputy Helser, the following exchange occurred:
[STATE:] In fact, you told Deputy Helser that you were trying to get away from [TF] because she was going crazy on you?
[LEGER:] When she’s screaming and yelling, saying she’s going to call the cops and have me arrested and turn in jail . . . Yeah, I would call that freaking out. She’s throwing my stuff all over. I mean, yeah, I got the heck out of there.
[STATE:] In fact, you pointed at your neck and said [TF] had grabbed you by the throat?
[LEGER:] She may have. I know she slapped me once when I was trying to get over there, trying to get over the top of her. She was trying to smack a cigarette out of my mouth or something, and she smacked me.
RP at 186.
4 No. 59248-7-II
The jury found Leger guilty of a felony violation of a court order—domestic violence.
Leger appeals.
ANALYSIS
Leger contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed
to object to TF’s statements on both hearsay and confrontation clause grounds. We disagree that
counsel provided ineffective assistance.
A. Legal Principles
Criminal defendants have a right to effective assistance of counsel. U.S. CONST. amend.
VI; WASH. CONST. art. I, § 22.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both
deficient performance and resulting prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104
S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). Counsel’s performance is deficient if it falls below an
objective standard of reasonableness. State v. Bertrand, 3 Wn.3d 116, 128, 546 P.3d 1020
(2024). We make a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable. Id. at 130.
To rebut this presumption, a defendant must show there was no possible legitimate trial tactic
that would explain counsel’s performance. State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 33, 246 P.3d 1260
(2011).
To demonstrate prejudice, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that the
outcome of the trial would have differed absent counsel’s deficient performance. Bertrand,
3 Wn.3d at 129. A mere showing that errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the
proceeding is not enough. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693. If a claim of ineffective assistance of
5 No. 59248-7-II
counsel fails to support a finding of either deficiency or prejudice, it fails, and we need not
address both components of the inquiry. Id. at 697.
If a defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel centers on their attorney’s
failure to object, then they must show that the objection would likely have succeeded. State v.
Crow, 8 Wn. App. 2d 480, 508, 438 P.3d 541 (2019).
B. Leger Fails to Demonstrate Prejudice
Even assuming without deciding that Leger’s counsel’s performance was deficient, Leger
fails to show prejudice—that the result of his trial would likely have been different absent TF’s
statements. Leger contends that his counsel’s failure to object prejudiced him because whether
he had intentional contact with TF was the primary issue before the jury.
But Leger’s own testimony established his contact with TF. Leger testified that he
walked to the van where TF was located, that “[he] leaned over her,” and that TF slapped him
when he was “trying to get over the top of her.” RP at 185-86. In addition, Leger admitted to
yelling at TF, “‘Why [do] you keep doing this to me? You got to go. Get the f[**]k out of here.’”
RP at 184.
Thus, Leger suffered no prejudice from the admission of TF’s statements through Deputy
Helser’s testimony. We hold that Leger’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because
Leger cannot show prejudice.
6 No. 59248-7-II
CONCLUSION
We hold that Leger’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because he cannot show
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Che, J. We concur:
Glasgow, J.
Veljacic, A.C.J.