Seattle Attorneys Blog
A recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals shows how much can turn on the objections a defense makes during trial. State v. Gulliksen, an unpublished opinion filed June 30, 2026, involved a restaurant supervisor convicted of second degree identity theft over charges on two employer credit cards. On appeal she argued that the trial court violated her Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. The court never reached the merits of that argument, because she had not raised it at her retrial. Blair & Kim’s criminal defense team follows rulings like this one, since they shape how financial-crime cases get tried in King, Pierce, and Snohomish County courtrooms.
The credit card charges behind the case
Tiffany Gulliksen worked as a restaurant supervisor at a Vancouver retirement center. Her job sometimes required buying supplies for the facility’s restaurant or for resident events, and she did so either by borrowing a coworker’s company credit card or by using her own money and asking for reimbursement.
In July 2022, the business office manager spotted charges she did not recognize on two of the facility’s cards, both of which Gulliksen had been the last to hold. Investigators pulled receipts and store surveillance photos from Ross, Burlington, and TJ Maxx. The receipts listed items such as children’s toys, clothing, and shoes. The State charged Gulliksen with one count of second degree identity theft. Her first trial ended in a hung jury; a second jury convicted her.
Why the confrontation clause argument never got heard
On appeal, Gulliksen argued that admitting the Burlington receipt and a store surveillance photo violated her right to confront witnesses, because no one from Burlington testified to authenticate them. The Court of Appeals declined to decide whether that was true, and the reason matters for anyone facing charges.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to confront adverse witnesses, and Washington courts treat meaningful cross-examination as the core of that right. Under the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Burns, though, a confrontation objection can be lost if the defense does not raise it at trial. The reasoning is that without an objection, the trial judge never rules on the issue, so there is no decision for an appellate court to review, and the “manifest constitutional error” exception in RAP 2.5(a)(3) does not fill the gap.
At the retrial, Gulliksen did not object to the receipt at all, and she objected to the photo only on “foundation” grounds. The court treated those as different arguments: a foundation objection questions whether the evidence has been properly connected to the case, while a confrontation objection asserts a constitutional right to cross-examine the person behind the evidence. Because no confrontation objection was made, the court held the claim was waived and affirmed. Notably, Gulliksen had raised confrontation at her first trial but not at the retrial, which underscores that the issue is preserved trial by trial, not once for the whole case.
Blair & Kim’s criminal defense team has handled thousands of Washington criminal matters, including charges involving alleged financial misconduct. Our case results reflect that trial and appellate experience.
What second degree identity theft means under Washington law
Under RCW 9.35.020, a person commits identity theft by knowingly using another person’s financial information with intent to commit a crime, knowing the information belongs to someone else. The charge is second degree, rather than first, when the credit, money, goods, or services obtained total less than $1,500.
Two points from the statute and the case law are worth understanding. First, the State does not have to prove intent to commit a specific crime; proof of intent to commit any crime is enough. Second, authorization can be a live issue. Gulliksen was allowed to borrow the cards for legitimate work purchases, so the case turned on whether the particular charges fell outside that permission.
How circumstantial evidence supported the conviction
Gulliksen also argued that the State failed to prove she used the cards for an improper purpose. The Court of Appeals disagreed, and its analysis is a useful reminder that circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence in Washington.
The court pointed to the personal nature of the purchases, children’s toys, clothing, and shoes, which two coworkers testified would have been unusual for her role. It noted that during the same period she sought reimbursement for event supplies from different stores, making the clothing purchases harder to explain as work related. And it weighed the inconsistent accounts she gave: to the investigating officer she suggested an ex-boyfriend may have taken the cards or that personal and business purchases were mixed up at the register, while at trial she suggested the items were for residents or an event. On questions of witness credibility, appellate courts defer to the jury, and the jury did not credit her explanation.
What an unpublished opinion like this can and cannot do
Gulliksen is unpublished, which under GR 14.1 means it is not binding precedent and carries no authority to control future cases. It can be cited, but a court is not obligated to follow it. Its value here is illustrative: it shows how Washington courts apply the Burns waiver rule and the identity theft statute, and it reinforces why the specific grounds of a trial objection can determine whether an issue survives to appeal.
Common questions about identity theft charges and confrontation rights in Washington
Can you raise a confrontation clause objection for the first time on appeal in Washington?
Usually not. Washington courts have held that the right to confront witnesses can be waived when the defense does not object on that specific ground at trial. Without a trial objection, there is generally no ruling for an appellate court to review.
What is second degree identity theft under Washington law?
Under RCW 9.35.020, it involves knowingly using another person’s financial information with intent to commit a crime, knowing the information belongs to someone else, where the value obtained is less than $1,500. The State does not have to prove intent to commit a particular crime.
Does a “foundation” objection preserve a confrontation clause challenge?
Not on its own. In State v. Gulliksen, the court treated a foundation objection as separate from a confrontation objection, so the constitutional claim was not preserved for appeal.
Talk with a Washington criminal defense attorney
If you are facing a second degree identity theft charge or another financial-crime allegation, the decisions made early in a case can affect what options remain later. The criminal defense attorneys at Blair & Kim represent clients throughout King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties from offices in Seattle and Bellevue. Call (206) 622-6562 or contact us to discuss your situation.