The Washington Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Thomas Lawrence Nebel for first degree escape. The court's decision, filed on November 3, 2026, affects Nebel, who was in a graduated reentry program after a felony conviction. This ruling clarifies the legal standards regarding judicial comments and prosecutorial conduct during trials.

Nebel was under the supervision of the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) when he absconded from a treatment facility. He had entered the graduated reentry program on October 30, 2024, which allowed him to receive substance abuse treatment while being monitored electronically. However, on December 14, 2024, staff at the facility discovered he was missing. His ankle monitor was later found cut and abandoned in a supermarket parking lot.

The State charged Nebel with first degree escape on January 6, 2025. During the trial, the court instructed the jury on the admissibility of evidence and the importance of not considering the judge's personal opinions. The prosecution presented evidence that Nebel had knowingly left the treatment facility, despite being warned about the consequences of leaving without permission.

During the trial, Officer David Tolbert testified about the electronic monitoring system and the conditions of Nebel's agreement to participate in the program. He explained that the ankle monitor communicated with a base unit at the facility and that Nebel was not authorized to leave. The jury ultimately found Nebel guilty, and he was sentenced to 29 months in custody.

Nebel appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court made an impermissible comment on the evidence, that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and that cumulative errors warranted a reversal of his conviction. The court addressed each of these claims in its ruling.

Regarding the alleged judicial comment, Nebel claimed that the trial court's statement about the reliability of the ankle monitor records violated the Washington Constitution's prohibition against judicial comments on evidence. However, the court ruled that the trial court's comments were not a personal opinion but rather a justification for admitting the evidence under the business records exception. The court stated, "The trial court’s statements reflect the reason for its evidentiary ruling and did not reflect the trial judge’s personal attitudes on the merits of the case."

The court also addressed Nebel's claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Nebel contended that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments were improper and expressed a personal opinion about his character. However, the court found that the prosecutor's remarks were reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, stating that the prosecution had "wide latitude to argue reasonable inferences from the evidence." The court concluded that Nebel could not show that any alleged misconduct had a substantial likelihood of affecting the jury's verdict.

Finally, the court dismissed Nebel's argument regarding cumulative error, stating that since there were no errors found, there could be no cumulative error warranting a new trial. The court affirmed the conviction, solidifying the legal principles surrounding evidentiary comments and prosecutorial conduct in Washington State.

This ruling has implications for future cases, as it reinforces the standards for judicial comments on evidence and the latitude afforded to prosecutors during closing arguments. Defendants in similar situations may face challenges in arguing for reversals based on claims of judicial bias or prosecutorial misconduct.

Looking forward, Nebel's options for appeal may be limited, as the court's decision is a significant ruling on established legal principles. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending or further actions Nebel may pursue.