Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of Washington v. Travis Jason Stough
Date: 07-09-2026
Case Number: 40582-6-III
Judge: Unavailable
Court: Superior Court, Harbor County, Washington
Plaintiff's Attorney: Habor County, Washington, District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Montesano Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Montesano, Washington, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver.
Reported by Kent Morlan
Mr. Stough and Stephanie Olson[1] were romantically involved until May 2023 and would often use methamphetamine together. Mr. Stough was a regular methamphetamine user who would often consume an "eight-ball," (about 3.5 grams) of methamphetamine daily or every few days. Verbatim Rep. of Proc. (VRP) at 784, 787-88. After their relationship ended, Ms. Olson contacted the Grays Harbor County Drug Task Force to inquire about working as a confidential informant to "tak[e] care of" a burglary charge she "was facing." VRP at 660.
The sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law this court reviews de novo. State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897, 903, 365 P.3d 746 (2016). In a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, "we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine 'whether . . . any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d 179, 201, 86 P.3d 139 (2004) (quoting State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992)). "A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn from it." State v. DeVries, 149 Wn.2d 842, 849, 72 P.3d 748 (2003). We can infer criminal intent from the defendant's conduct, and circumstantial evidence and direct evidence carry equal weight. Varga, 151 Wn.2d at 201. However, "inferences based on circumstantial evidence must be reasonable and cannot be based on speculation." State v. Vasquez, 178 Wn.2d 1, 16, 309 P.3d 318 (2013). We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, witness credibility, and the persuasiveness of evidence. State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 874-75, 83 P.3d 970 (2004).
Under the supervision of the Grays Harbor County Drug Task Force, Ms. Olson purchased methamphetamine from Mr. Stough on three separate occasions at his residence in Ocean City, Washington. Detective Ryan Tully used information from these purchases to obtain a search warrant for Mr. Stough's residence. A subsequent search of Mr. Stough's residence yielded two vacuum sealed bags that had been cut open, one with the number "52" written on it, a "baggy of suspected methamphetamine" weighing 3.46 grams, hypodermic needles, a digital scale, and "various bags."[2] VRP at 475, 481, 628. Law enforcement discovered 4.5 grams of suspected cocaine in Mr. Stough's pocket when he was later arrested.
Reported by Kent Morlan
Mr. Stough and Stephanie Olson[1] were romantically involved until May 2023 and would often use methamphetamine together. Mr. Stough was a regular methamphetamine user who would often consume an "eight-ball," (about 3.5 grams) of methamphetamine daily or every few days. Verbatim Rep. of Proc. (VRP) at 784, 787-88. After their relationship ended, Ms. Olson contacted the Grays Harbor County Drug Task Force to inquire about working as a confidential informant to "tak[e] care of" a burglary charge she "was facing." VRP at 660.
The sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law this court reviews de novo. State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897, 903, 365 P.3d 746 (2016). In a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, "we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine 'whether . . . any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d 179, 201, 86 P.3d 139 (2004) (quoting State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992)). "A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn from it." State v. DeVries, 149 Wn.2d 842, 849, 72 P.3d 748 (2003). We can infer criminal intent from the defendant's conduct, and circumstantial evidence and direct evidence carry equal weight. Varga, 151 Wn.2d at 201. However, "inferences based on circumstantial evidence must be reasonable and cannot be based on speculation." State v. Vasquez, 178 Wn.2d 1, 16, 309 P.3d 318 (2013). We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, witness credibility, and the persuasiveness of evidence. State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 874-75, 83 P.3d 970 (2004).
Under the supervision of the Grays Harbor County Drug Task Force, Ms. Olson purchased methamphetamine from Mr. Stough on three separate occasions at his residence in Ocean City, Washington. Detective Ryan Tully used information from these purchases to obtain a search warrant for Mr. Stough's residence. A subsequent search of Mr. Stough's residence yielded two vacuum sealed bags that had been cut open, one with the number "52" written on it, a "baggy of suspected methamphetamine" weighing 3.46 grams, hypodermic needles, a digital scale, and "various bags."[2] VRP at 475, 481, 628. Law enforcement discovered 4.5 grams of suspected cocaine in Mr. Stough's pocket when he was later arrested.
Outcome:
The Defendant was found guilty.
Affirmed
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of Washington v. Travis Jason Stough?
The outcome was: The Defendant was found guilty. Affirmed
Which court heard State of Washington v. Travis Jason Stough?
This case was heard in Superior Court, Harbor County, Washington, WA. The presiding judge was Unavailable.
Who were the attorneys in State of Washington v. Travis Jason Stough?
Plaintiff's attorney: Habor County, Washington, District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Montesano Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was State of Washington v. Travis Jason Stough decided?
This case was decided on July 9, 2026.