Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
A Pierce County jury acquitted Nathan Mapp of second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of Tamrah Dickman and separately found that he acted in self-defense. All but two jurors agreed with the self-defense finding. The two verdicts were separate; Mapp also had a guilty plea in a firearm-possession case, for which sentencing was still pending in the latest report.
What the jury decided
The jury found Nathan Mapp not guilty of both second-degree murder theories in the shooting death of Tamrah Dickman. After those acquittals, jurors separately considered whether the shooting was self-defense. All but two agreed that it was, according to The News Tribune’s March 25, 2026 report, updated March 27.
The jury consisted of seven men and five women. The report said at least 10 jurors had to find self-defense more likely than not, and all but two did. That separate finding should not be confused with the murder verdict: the acquittal resolved the criminal murder charges, while the self-defense question was considered afterward.
What happened and what each side argued
The shooting occurred early January 28, 2024, at Mapp’s Eastside Tacoma home. Mapp called 911 and said he had shot Dickman, who was in a hallway closet. Dickman was 39 and a mother of five; Mapp was 45 at the time of trial.
The prosecution’s account
Prosecutors argued that the shooting arose from conflict over money and drugs, and said Mapp gave inconsistent accounts to 911, an officer and detectives. Deputy prosecuting attorney Matthew Thomas said in closing arguments that Mapp went for the gun because Dickman was threatening his cocaine and money. That was the prosecution’s theory, not a finding stated by the jury.
The defense’s account
Defense attorney Jared Ausserer argued that Mapp believed his home had been burglarized and perceived a gun in the closet. Mapp said he did not know Dickman was there. After the verdict, Ausserer said the defense was thankful jurors agreed it was self-defense, while acknowledging that the jury—not the defense—decided the case.
The trial evidence described in The News Tribune’s report included three bullet holes in the closet, Dickman having been shot twice, pepper spray in the air and a pistol tucked into her pants. The report also notes that prosecutors disputed Mapp’s account. Those reported details do not establish which parts of the competing accounts jurors accepted.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →How Washington law relates to the verdict
Washington’s RCW 9A.16.050 lists circumstances in which a homicide by someone other than a peace officer may be justifiable. Its language includes lawful defense when there is reasonable ground to apprehend imminent danger of a felony or great personal injury, as well as actual resistance to an attempt to commit a felony in a dwelling or other place of abode.
The statute gives general legal context; it does not establish which facts the jury accepted or reproduce the specific instructions jurors received. The verdict report describes the jury’s separate self-defense decision, but does not provide a detailed account of the jury’s reasoning.
The separate firearm-possession case
Mapp pleaded guilty on March 11, 2026, to second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. The News Tribune reported that sentencing was scheduled for April 17, 2026, with a standard range of one to three months. That was a scheduled hearing and reported range, not confirmation of the sentence ultimately imposed. The murder acquittal did not erase the separate guilty plea.
Rank #4
What the report says about reimbursement
Washington’s RCW 9A.16.110 addresses reimbursement of reasonable costs after a qualifying self-defense finding. It requires a claim to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence; a judge determines any award and may deny or reduce it in specified circumstances, including related criminal conduct.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The News Tribune reported that Mapp had the right to reimbursement, but did not state that a particular amount had been awarded or set. The statutory framework alone does not establish an award in this case.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
