Evidence Needed for a Domestic Violence Conviction in Washington
Under Washington law, some crimes may be designated as crimes of domestic violence if the State can produce sufficient evidence that the offense meets the criteria set forth under the law. If the State cannot prove each element of a domestic violence crime, a domestic violence designation may be stricken
Self Defense
When you’re facing a criminal domestic violence charge, there are many things that may go into your defense. If you took physical action because you reasonably feared for your safety and used only as much force as necessary, you may have a valid defense of self-defense.
Evidence of Prior Convictions for Domestic Violence
Thus, if a person found guilty of violating such an order has prior domestic violence convictions, it may result in an increased offender score, which in turn can lead to greater penalties. The state must offer sufficient evidence to prove a prior conviction was for a crime of domestic violence in order to justify an increased offender score
Evidence of Prior Bad Acts
In Washington criminal matters, evidence of prior bad acts and crimes is typically considered inadmissible due to concerns about prejudice. In other words, the State cannot point to previous behavior in an effort to convince a jury that a defendant acted similarly on the date of an alleged crime. However, the state recognizes exceptions to this general rule and allows the introduction of such evidence for specific and limited purposes. One recognized exception is when the evidence is deemed “inextricably intertwined” with the underlying crime.
Example 1: Challenging Evidence of Prior Bad Acts
A relevant example involves a recent ruling in Washington court in which it ultimately denied the defendant’s motion in limine to preclude evidence of domestic violence.
It is reported that the federal government charged the defendant with conspiracy to engage in cyberstalking and multiple counts of cyberstalking. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to preclude the government from introducing testimony from the defendant’s former spouse about alleged domestic violence. In support of his motion, the defendant contended that testimony on domestic violence lacked a temporal connection to stalking and should be excluded.
Evidence of Domestic Violence in Criminal Cases
The court denied the defendant’s motion to preclude the testimony of his former spouse. In doing so, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that such testimony lacked a temporal connection to and was not “inextricably intertwined” with the cyberstalking charges.
The court referred to two categories of cases where evidence is considered “inextricably intertwined.” One such category involves evidence used to allow the prosecutor to set forth a complete and understandable story regarding the commission of a crime. Here, the court found that the potential commission of domestic violence by the defendant was indeed inextricably intertwined with the cyberstalking charges.
First, the domestic violence had a temporal connection to the cyberstalking case, as it was alleged to have occurred throughout the defendant’s stalking campaign. Secondly, the court noted a causal connection, suggesting that the former spouse’s testimony might reveal that the defendant’s abuse was one reason for her involvement in the crimes he was charged with. The court concluded that testimonial evidence of domestic violence would have a contextual and substantive connection to the alleged cyberstalking crime and ruled it could be admitted into evidence.
The defendant also sought to admit statements made by federal government attorneys and law enforcement agents. The court acknowledged that federal government attorneys could be considered party opponents, and their statements might be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and granted the defendant’s motion. The court refused to extend this rule to federal and state law enforcement agents, however, citing the inability to bind the sovereign and principles of sovereign immunity.
Example 2: Trial Court Improperly Limited Evidence of Self-Defense
In a recent case from Tacoma, the Washington Court of Appeals threw out a conviction because the trial court’s refusal to allow the accused man to testify about two previous attacks, in which he was the victim and his alleged victim was the attacker, improperly limited the man’s constitutional right to put on a defense.
In this case, Tacoma police officers, responding to witness claims that a man was striking a woman with his knee, found the woman, Lisa Miles, with several injuries to her face. The man, Kenneth Driscoll, told officers he acted in self-defense.
The prosecution charged Driscoll with fourth-degree assault — domestic violence. At his trial, Driscoll tried to bring out evidence of three previous incidents in which Miles attacked him, with the intention that these incidents would strengthen his defense of self-defense. One event, which triggered a police response, involved Miles allegedly attempting to stab Driscoll with scissors. In two other incidents, Miles allegedly attacked Driscoll, once with a rock and once with a meat cleaver.
The trial court let the man use the scissors incident, since an official record of the incident existed, but it refused to allow him to use the other two alleged attacks. Ultimately, despite the man’s testimony regarding the scissors attack and his claim that he only kneed Miles after she “cold-cocked” him at the bus shelter, the jury found Driscoll guilty.
The man appealed, arguing that, when the trial court refused to allow him to testify about the rock and meat cleaver incidents, it denied him his constitutional right to mount a full defense. The appeals court agreed and reversed his conviction. In any case in which the accused person uses self-defense as a defense, Washington law requires that person to prove that he had “a subjective fear of imminent danger of bodily harm,” that this fear “was objectively reasonable,” and that he used “no more force than was reasonably necessary.” Incidents like the alleged rock and cleaver attacks were definitely relevant to Driscoll’s case, since they had the potential to show that he had a legitimate reason to fear Miles. Having evidence that Miles attacked him three times, not just one time, could possibly bolster Driscoll’s case that he subjectively feared Miles and had an objective basis for doing so.
The appeals court also rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the cleaver and rock incidents lacked sufficient accuracy and credibility to be admissible as evidence because the evidence, in the form of Driscoll’s testimony, had nothing to corroborate it. This lack of corroboration did not make the testimony inadmissible at trial. The lack of corroborating proof, while it would reduce the persuasive weight the testimony would carry, did not bar its admissibility.
Example 3: The State Fails to Provide Evidence that the Defendant and Victim Were Not Family Members
In a recent Washington appellate case, the state failed to meet the burden of proof in a domestic violence case.
It is alleged that the victim received a phone call from an unidentified number. The victim recognized the caller as the defendant, even though the defendant did not identify himself. The caller stated that he was glad that the victim had a brain tumor and that he hoped the victim would die, and used profanity. The caller also called the victim offensive names.
Reportedly, the victim had a restraining order against the defendant at the time of the call. The victim called the police to report that the defendant had violated the restraining order and harassed the victim via telephone. The defendant was charged with violating the restraining order and telephone harassment, both of which were designated crimes of domestic violence. A jury convicted the defendant of both offenses. The defendant appealed on several grounds, including that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence that the crimes were acts of domestic violence.
Sufficiency of Evidence of Domestic Violence
Under Washington law, a misdemeanor conviction for an offense designated as a crime of domestic violence may count against the defendant’s offender score in a later sentencing for another domestic violence crime. A crime will not be considered a crime of domestic violence, however, unless it is committed against a member of the defendant’s family or household.
In Washington, spouses and former spouses, people related by marriage or blood, and people who have a child together are considered members of the same family or household. Additionally, people who have lived together in the past or currently live together, people in a dating relationship, and people with a parent-child relationship are considered family or household members as well.
In the subject case, the defendant and victim were not household or family members pursuant to the definition set forth under Washington law. Further, the State did not produce any evidence that the victim and the defendant were ever members of the same family or household. Thus, the court held that the State did not produce sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant committed crimes of domestic violence and struck the designation from the defendant’s convictions.
Example 4: Another Case Involving Evidence of Prior Wrongdoings
The grounds for admitting evidence of prior acts of domestic violence was the topic of a recent Washington opinion, in a matter involving a felony violation of a no-contact order. If you are accused of a domestic violence offense, it is advisable to speak to a capable Washington domestic violence defense attorney about your rights.
It is reported that the defendant and the victim became romantically involved when they were co-workers. At some point, a no-contact order was entered, preventing the two from associating with each other. Regardless, they saw each other at a party for their former employer. Later that evening, the victim sent a friend messages indicating she had been assaulted by the defendant. The friend went to the victim’s house and observed marks on her leg and face. He then heard someone in the garage and hid in the bathroom, and called 911.
Allegedly, during the 911 call, the defendant could be heard engaging in an altercation with the victim. The police arrived and arrested the defendant, who was charged with felony violation of a no-contact order. He was convicted, after which he appealed, arguing in part that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior acts of domestic violence at his trial.
Evidence of Prior Wrongs in Domestic Violence Cases
The Washington rules of evidence prohibit the admission of evidence of previous bad behavior for the purpose of establishing a person’s character and proving that the person’s acts align with that character. Such evidence may be admitted for other reasons, though, as long as it is relevant, and its probative value does not outweigh the risk of prejudice.
The court explained that Washington courts repeatedly admitted previous acts of domestic violence to help a jury assess the credibility of a victim that retracts allegations of harm or makes inconsistent statements. In the subject case, the court noted that the victim stated at trial that she was not assaulted by the defendant and merely stated that she was because she was drunk and wanted attention. Thus, the court found that the evidence of the defendant’s prior acts of domestic violence fell within the exception and affirmed his guilty verdict.
Example 4: Challenging Evidence of Prior Domestic Violence Convictions
In a recent Washington opinion. If you are accused of committing a crime of domestic violence, it is wise to contact a Tacoma domestic violence defense attorney to discuss your options for protecting your rights.
It is reported that the defendant was charged with and found guilty of violating a domestic violence no-contact order, which was graded as a felony. The trial court sentenced him to 33 months of confinement based on an offender score of five, which included a 2012 conviction for misdemeanor assault, domestic violence. The defendant appealed his judgment and sentence, arguing that the 2012 conviction should not have been included in his offender score as the state had failed to show that domestic violence had been pleaded and proved.
Allegedly, the trial court agreed with the defendant’s argument and remanded the case for resentencing. At the resentencing hearing, the state produced evidence showing that the 2012 conviction qualified for inclusion in the defendant’s offender score based on domestic violence being both pleaded and proved. As such, the trial court reinstated the defendant’s 33-month sentence, and he appealed again.
Evidence of Crimes of Domestic Violence
On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence produced at the resentencing hearing was insufficient to establish that the 2012 conviction qualified for inclusion in his offender score on the basis of domestic violence being pleaded and proved. The court reviewed this issue de novo and determined that domestic violence was adequately pleaded in the 2012 citation, which referenced a general assault provision but specified the defendant’s offense as “DV,” meaning domestic violence. The certificate of probable cause also detailed the defendant’s offense of hitting his live-in girlfriend in the face, causing bruising, which was sufficient to allege an assault against an intimate partner.
Therefore, the court held that the state had produced sufficient evidence to show that the 2012 citation pleaded a domestic violence offense and that domestic violence was proved. As a result, the sentencing court properly included the 2012 conviction in the defendant’s offender score and affirmed the judgment and sentence.
Meet with an Experienced Domestic Violence Attorney
The State bears the burden of proving each of the elements of a crime of domestic violence to obtain a conviction. If you are a Washington resident charged with a crime of domestic violence, it is important to meet with a knowledgeable Washington domestic violence defense attorney regarding your rights and available defenses. The dedicated criminal defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Smith & White will zealously pursue a favorable outcome on your behalf. You can contact us through our form online or at (253) 203-1645 to set up a conference.