Evidence

Washington Court Rules on When Testimony of a Treating Physician is Required in an Assault Case

Published on: December 12, 2018 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

In many criminal cases, whether a defendant is convicted of a greater or lesser offense depends on the state’s evidence against the defendant. As such, if you are charged with a crime, it is important to know what evidence the state intends to introduce against you and seek to exclude any prohibited evidence that may negatively affect your case.

In Washington v. Heyer, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington affirmed a defendant’s conviction for third-degree assault, finding that testimony of a treating physician was not necessary to lay a foundation for a victim’s medical records to be admitted into evidence at trial. If you face assault charges, you should retain a skilled Washington criminal defense attorney to analyze the facts of your case and assist you in formulating a defense.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the defendant was at a car auction, where he bid on the same car as his victim. After the defendant won the car, the victim stated the defendant could use his commissary money to pay for the car, referring to the defendant’s prior imprisonment. In response, the defendant punched the victim in the face one or two times. The defendant was charged with second-degree assault. He waived his right to a jury and proceeded to a bench trial. During the trial the victim testified his nose would not stop bleeding following the assault and he was referred to a specialist due to a fracture. The defendant’s counsel objected to this testimony on the grounds that it was hearsay.

Washington Court of Appeals Holds Prior Conviction for Vehicular Assault While Under the Influence of Alcohol is a Sufficient Basis to Enhance DUI Charges

Published on: November 27, 2018 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

If you are accused of a DUI, whether you are charged with a misdemeanor or felony offense depends on whether you have previously been convicted of vehicular assault under Washington law. As the Washington Court of Appeals explained in Washington v. Allen, however, not all vehicular assaults are treated equally in terms of evaluating subsequent charges. Rather, only certain vehicular assault convictions serve as a basis for enhanced charges. If you are charged with a DUI, it is essential to your defense to retain an experienced Washington DUI defense attorney to analyze the circumstances regarding your arrest and what evidence the state may attempt to introduce against you.

Facts of the Case

Purportedly, the defendant in Allen was charged with a felony DUI, due to a prior conviction of vehicular assault under the influence. The trial was bifurcated per the defendant’s request. The first issue submitted to the jury was whether the defendant was guilty of DUI, which the jury determined he was. The second issue submitted to the jury was whether the defendant’s prior conviction for vehicular assault provided sufficient grounds to convict the defendant of a felony offense. On the second issue, the state introduced records from the defendant’s prior case as well as testimony from the arresting officer in the defendant’s prior case as to the defendant’s behavior at the time of his prior arrest. Based on the evidence presented, the jury found that the defendant was previously convicted of vehicular assault while under the influence of alcohol. The defendant subsequently appealed the jury’s finding regarding his prior conviction.

Washington Court of Appeals Holds the Failure to Make a Timely Objection to Inadmissible Testimony Regarding a Victim’s Credibility Constitutes a Waiver of the Objection

Published on: November 20, 2018 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

Under Washington law, evidence that a victim’s account of an alleged assault has remained consistent is inadmissible to corroborate the victim’s testimony. As outlined in Washington v. Kleinsmith, however, a failure to make a timely objection to inadmissible testimony will result in a waiver of the objection. In Kleinsmith, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington upheld the defendant’s conviction for second-degree assault regardless of the fact the prosecutor introduced inadmissible testimony regarding the victim’s credibility, due to the defendant’s counsel’s failure to make a timely objection to the testimony. If you are charged with assault, it is essential to your defense to retain an experienced Washington assault defense attorney who will fight to have any inadmissible testimony precluded from evidence.

Facts of the Case

Reportedly, the defendant and her alleged victim were neighbors in an apartment building. The victim heard someone sag to “get out” as she walked past the defendant’s apartment, and when she turned around, she saw a woman with a butcher knife. The victim further alleged the woman began to chase her and screamed, “don’t come back.” The victim reported the incident to an employee in the building’s front office, who called the police. The victim described her assailant as a blonde woman wearing a t-shirt and shorts. When the police arrived, the building employee advised them that the defendant matched the physical description of the assailant.

Allegedly, the police repeatedly knocked on the defendant’s door, but she would not answer. The police eventually opened the defendant’s apartment with a key. When they entered the apartment, the defendant came from the back of the apartment and advised she was sleeping. The defendant was arrested and informed of her Miranda rights, after which she requested an attorney. She asked the officers to retrieve items from her apartment, and one of the officers noticed a large knife by the kitchen sink. As the defendant was escorted from the building, the victim advised the officers she was “one hundred percent” sure that the defendant was her assailant. The defendant did not testify at the trial. The building employee and arresting officer both testified and stated the victim’s story remained consistent. The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree, after which she appealed.

Washington Court of Appeals Finds Officer Testimony Sufficient Evidence to Uphold A Conviction for Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer

Published on: November 14, 2018 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

Under Washington law, to convict a defendant of third-degree assault of a law enforcement officer the state is required to prove the officer was performing his or her job duties at the time of the assault and that the defendant intended to hit the officer. In Washington v. Eagle, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington upheld the defendant’s conviction for third-degree assault of an officer, finding the officer’s testimony that he was performing his job at the time of the incident and believed the defendant intended to hit him was sufficient evidence of the crime charged. If you face assault charges, it is important to retain a Washington assault defense attorney who will aggressively advocate on your behalf.

Facts of the Case

Purportedly, a bystander called the police after she heard a man and woman fighting. When the police arrived, they spoke with a woman who stated the defendant hit her and pushed her to the ground. One of the police officers called the defendant, and the defendant agreed to meet with the officer at a park. After the defendant arrived, he spoke with the officer. The officer then advised the defendant he was under arrest. The defendant did not surrender to the arrest, and an altercation ensued, during which the officer had to force the defendant to the ground. The altercation was recorded via a surveillance camera. The defendant was charged with fourth-degree assault of the woman, but the charge was dropped. He was also charged with third-degree assault of a law enforcement officer.

Under Washington Law a Suspect can be Convicted of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm if Suspect has Actual Notice of a Firearm Prohibition

Published on: October 12, 2018 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

A felony conviction may affect your ability to possess a handgun under Washington law. If you are prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a conviction, the state must advise you of the prohibition at the time of your conviction, and the state must show that you were advised of the prohibition to prosecute you for unlawful possession of a firearm. In State of Washington v. Joaquin David Garcia, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington held, however, that a suspect could be convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm even if he or she was not advised of the prohibition at the time of his or her conviction, if he or she later became aware of the prohibition. If you are charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, it is important to confer with a knowledgeable Washington weapons charge defense attorney to ensure your rights are protected.

Facts of the Case

Purportedly, the suspect’s girlfriend advised her physician during an appointment that the suspect threatened her and was in the waiting room with a gun. Upon arrival of the police, the suspect allegedly admitted he had a gun but stated it was his girlfriend’s. The suspect further advised the officer he was a convicted felon and was not permitted to carry a gun. The officer found a gun on the suspect’s person.

Washington Appellate Court Holds Circumstantial Evidence of DUI Provides Sufficient Grounds for a Suspect’s Confessions to be Admitted into Evidence

Published on: October 5, 2018 | By The Law Offices of Smith & White, PLLC

If you are charged with a crime, whether or not you are convicted largely depends on what evidence the state is permitted to use against you at trial. Under Washington law, the state must set forth independent evidence of a crime before any confessions made by a suspect may be considered as evidence of guilt. In State of Washington v. Abdirauf A. Isse, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington held that circumstantial evidence that a suspect was driving a vehicle while intoxicated was sufficient evidence to support a DUI charge, and therefore, the suspect’s statements that he was driving the vehicle were admissible. If you were charged with a DUI, it is essential to your defense to retain an experienced Washington DUI defense attorney to analyze the facts of your case and what defenses you can assert against the charges you face.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, a police officer responded to the scene of a one-vehicle accident that occurred on an interstate highway. The suspect and a tow truck driver were present at the scene upon the officer’s arrival. The suspect stated he hit black ice and lost control of the vehicle. He retrieved the vehicle registration upon request, but stated the car was registered to his cousin. The suspect did not have a license. Upon realizing the vehicle would be towed, the suspect allegedly became angry and began to yell at the responding officer. The officer observed an odor of alcohol on the suspect’s breath and began to investigate the suspect for suspicion of DUI. During the investigation the suspect spit on several police officers. The suspect was subsequently charged with third degree assault and DUI. Prior to his trial, the suspect moved to suppress any statements he made during his arrest, which the court denied. Following the state’s presentation of its case, the suspect moved to dismiss the DUI charge, which the court denied as well. The suspect was convicted on both charges. He subsequently appealed his DUI charge.