A 19-year-old Central Washington University student died on March 10, 2020, after falling from a 4th story window at an off-campus apartment complex. Witnesses reported he was under the influence of LSD. Local officers were dispatched after multiple reports of the young man acting erratically and damaging property. As police arrived and exited their patrol cars to make contact, the student fell from a window. Officers and paramedics performed CPR, but he died before he could be hospitalized. Blood tests later confirmed the presence of LSD.
Circumstantial evidence, including a Snapchat conversation between the student and Mr. West, established that Mr. West had sold 3 LSD-laced sugar cubes to the student. The time of delivery was less than 4 hours before 911 calls were received by the Ellensburg police. Mr. West went to trial, where testimony indicated one of the sugar cubes had a “double dose” of LSD. Mr. West was convicted as charged of “delivery of a controlled substance” and “controlled substance homicide.” He received a sentence of 60 months in prison, which is the top of the sentencing range.
Mr. West was arrested and charged in October 2021, more than a year after the student’s death. In February 2022, Mr. West retained a local Ellensburg attorney, who was later appointed as a part-time Kittitas County Court Commissioner in April 2023. He worked one day a week as a commissioner.
Mr. West’s trial began in January 2024. After two days of trial, the State (not Mr. West) raised concerns about the defense attorney’s role as a court commissioner, including the perception of his “nameplate on the court clerk’s desk” and “going through a door leading to a hallway and to his office.” The State was concerned jurors would be confused by this unusual treatment. The prosecutor and defense counsel (i.e., the part time commissioner) addressed how these factors “might” influence the jury. West, page 3.
Mr. West argued his attorney had a “direct concurrent conflict of interest,” because his interests were adverse to his attorney’s duties to Kittitas County and the State of Washington in his role as court commissioner. This argument was strongly rejected by Division III, because “a court commissioner, similar to a judge, does not represent a client. It is a non-advocate ‘role.’” West, Id. Mr. West also argued that his attorney’s dual role “violated the appearance of fairness doctrine.” West, page 4. The Court held this to be in inapposite: the appearance to a juror of the attorney’s status as a court commissioner would enhance the defense attorney’s credibility.
Appeal denied. The attorney representing Mr. West had a sound scientific defense theory for the homicide charge, which did not prevail. He also fought hard and long for Mr. West at sentencing: perhaps the Kittitas community recognized this. He was later elected as one of Kittitas County’s two superior court judges in November 2025.