What Evidence is Admissible in a Washington Criminal Trial?
In Washington criminal matters, the State bears the burden of showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the charged offense. The State can rely on direct and circumstantial evidence to prove its case. Generally, any evidence that is relevant is admissible as long as it does not confuse or mislead the jury and is not overly prejudicial.
Is Expert Opinion Evidence Admissible in Criminal Trials?
Recently, a Washington court discussed whether the use of expert testimony in criminal matters is permissible in a case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for assault. If you are accused of assaulting another person, it is smart to talk to a Tacoma assault crime defense attorney to determine what evidence the State may use against you.
It is alleged that the defendant and his girlfriend had a tumultuous relationship. One evening when the girlfriend was at the defendant’s house, they had a disagreement. The girlfriend attempted to leave, but the defendant locked her out of the house without her possessions or car keys. The girlfriend then laid in the bed of the defendant’s truck, and when the defendant saw her, he began grabbing her to attempt to get her to leave.
Reportedly, the defendant placed his arms around the girlfriend’s neck until she began to see spots. She told the defendant she could not breathe, and he eventually let her go. Two days later, the defendant was charged with second degree assault by strangulation. During his trial, the State filed a motion to admit testimony from a medical expert regarding how strangulation happens and what issues are common following strangulation. The defendant objected to the motion, but the court granted it despite his objections. He was convicted, after which he appealed.
Evidence Admissible in Criminal Trials
On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present expert testimony on the issue of strangulation on the grounds that it was not helpful to the jury. Alternatively, he argued that it was cumulative and confusing. The court disagreed and affirmed his conviction.
In doing so, the court explained that under the Washington Rules of Evidence, expert testimony is admissible if the witness in question is qualified to testify as an expert, their opinion is based on a theory generally adopted in the scientific community, and their testimony would be helpful to the fact finder. Expert testimony may nonetheless be precluded if it is confusing or misleading. In the subject case, the court found the testimony in question to be helpful to the jury and did not find it to be confusing or misleading. Thus, it affirmed the trial court ruling.
Are Prior Bad Acts Admissible as Evidence in Washington?
It is a well-established rule of law in Washington that the State cannot introduce evidence of a defendant’s prior bad behavior to establish that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she is currently charged. While evidence of prior bad actions cannot be used to prove guilt, it is admissible for other reasons. This was discussed in a recent domestic violence case decided by a Washington appellate court, in which the defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of verbal abuse.
Allegedly, the defendant became romantically involved with the victim, and shortly thereafter moved into her home with his five-year-old son. The victim alleged that the defendant punched her in the face multiple times, after which she advised him that she no longer felt safe and wanted to end the relationship. In response, the defendant kicked her in the head and punched her in the face, causing her face to split open. The victim was then afraid to leave her home due to an implied threat from the defendant. She was also worried that if she left, the defendant would harm his son. She eventually called 911, which resulted in the defendant’s arrest. He was ultimately charged with second-degree assault, fourth-degree assault, and unlawful imprisonment. He was convicted of second-degree assault and appealed on numerous grounds, including the assertion that the trial court erred in allowing the State to admit prior bad act evidence.
Evidence of Prior Bad Acts
Under Washington law, the State is prohibited from introducing evidence of prior bad acts to demonstrate that the defendant had the propensity or character to commit crimes. Evidence of prior bad acts may be introduced for other purposes, however. For evidence of prior bad acts to be admitted for other purposes, the court must find that misconduct occurred, and assess the purpose for admitting the evidence, and whether the evidence is pertinent to an element of the current crime. The court must also find that the evidence’s probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.
In the subject case, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce evidence that he verbally abused his son. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the evidence was properly admitted establishing why the victim felt restrained, in that it showed that she feared the defendant would harm his son if she left her home. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.
Is Hearsay Admissible in a Washington Criminal Trial?
Under Washington criminal cases, hearsay evidence is inadmissible. In other words, the State cannot introduce evidence of an out of court statement made by another party, to show the truth of the matter of the statement. There are exceptions to the rule, though, that will render hearsay evidence admissible. For example, if a statement was made under certain conditions, it may fall under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay, as demonstrated in a recent domestic violence case.
Further, even if hearsay evidence is improperly introduced at a criminal trial, the error may not constitute sufficient grounds for overturning a guilty verdict.
Appealing a Case Because of Hearsay Evidence Being Admitted
In a recent ruling in which a court rejected a defendant’s appeal of his assault conviction even though the prosecution offered improper hearsay evidence at trial. It is reported that the defendant and the victim became romantically involved shortly after the victim moved to Washington. One evening, they were spending time together at the defendant’s apartment when the victim received a text message from a male friend. The defendant saw the message and became angry, and the two began to argue. The disagreement became physical, and the defendant held the victim down, put his arms around her neck, and threatened to kill her.
It is alleged that the victim lost consciousness. When she awoke, the defendant kicked her in the head and prevented her from leaving. She left the next day and went to the hospital. The defendant was ultimately charged with and convicted of second-degree assault and other offenses. He appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to admit medical records that contained inadmissible hearsay.
Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Cases in Washington
The appellate court denied the defendant’s appeal. The court explained that the record in question included a note stating that the victim presented to the hospital after an assault in which she was choked. The defendant argued that the reference to choking corroborated the victim’s testimony, which was the only evidence of the alleged choking, and therefore rendered his attorney’s assistance ineffective.
The court declined to adopt the defendant’s reasoning, noting that he could not establish that he suffered prejudice from the admission of the victim’s medical records. Specifically, he was required to show that it was reasonably likely that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the records were not introduced for his appeal to be granted. The court noted that it was not clear that any objection to the records would have been sustained, as they were admissible as business records, and to the extent certain statements within them constituted hearsay, such statements fell under exceptions to the rule against hearsay. Thus, the appellate court denied his appeal.
It is alleged that the defendant and his victim were former romantic partners who decided to resume their relationship. In January 2018, the victim picked up the defendant, who appeared angry. The defendant proceeded to verbally and physically assault the victim while she was driving. The victim then drove her car into the parking lot of a casino, where she hoped to drop the defendant off. The victim noticed a police officer patrolling the lot and drove her car directly at him, yelling that the defendant had just assaulted her.
Reportedly, the officer ordered the defendant out of the car and questioned the victim, who stated that the defendant told her he wanted to kill her, and she was in imminent fear for her life. The officer noticed redness around the victim’s neck as well. The defendant was charged with three crimes of domestic violence, including second-degree assault. The case proceeded to trial, during which the officer testified regarding the victim’s statements prior to the defendant’s arrest. The defendant was found guilty, after which he appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the victim’s statements to be admitted under the excited utterance exception of the rule against hearsay.
Excited Utterance Exception to the Rule Against Hearsay
Under Washington law, any statement made by a person other than the witness who is testifying is hearsay if it is offered to prove the truth of the statement. Hearsay testimony is inadmissible unless it falls under one of the exceptions. For example, excited utterances, which are statements that relate to a shocking event or condition and are made while the person speaking is under the stress of the event or condition, are admissible. For hearsay to be admissible under the excited utterance exception, the party seeking to introduce the statement must show the shocking condition or event, the statement was made while the person was under the stress of the condition or event, and that the statement related to the condition or event.
In the subject case, the defendant argued that the victim’s statements were not spontaneous and were not made while she was under the stress of the event. The court disagreed, finding that the stress of the event was ongoing, and there was sufficient evidence that the victim was still in shock and the time she made the statements. As such, the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions.
Is Evidence of Uncharged Crimes Admissible in Washington?
Typically, in a Washington criminal trial, the prosecution is limited to introducing evidence that would persuade a judge or jury that the defendant committed the charged offense. As such, any evidence that is unrelated to the underlying crimes, and that would be prejudicial to the defendant may be precluded. For example, the prosecution cannot typically refer to uncharged crimes the defendant may have committed
In a recent Washington weapons charges case, it is reported that the defendant had a close relationship with a female friend that lived with a boyfriend and a child she had with the boyfriend. One evening, the boyfriend showed the defendant multiple guns that he owned and kept in a gun safe. The following morning, the defendant, who suffered from several mental illnesses, became convinced that the boyfriend had molested the child and advised his friend that they needed to take the guns and child and leave the apartment.
Allegedly, the friend dismissed the defendant’s allegations, but he persisted, after which they became involved in a physical altercation. The friend called the police, and when the police arrived, they found the defendant outside of the apartment building with a bag containing two guns. The defendant was charged with two counts of firearm theft and second-degree assault. He was convicted as charged, after which he appealed on several grounds.
Evidence of Uncharged Crimes
On appeal, the defendant argued, in part, that the prosecution engaged in misconduct by implying to the jury that the defendant could have been charged with more than two counts of firearm theft. The appellate court ultimately disagreed.
Under Washington law, references to crimes with which the defendant was not charged or that were dismissed may be prejudicial to the defendant because it invites the jury to assess the defendant’s guilt based on improper grounds. Thus, for evidence regarding uncharged crimes to be admissible, it must be relevant to the issues at trial and allow for reasonable inferences and arguments about the charged crimes to be made.
In the subject case, the evidence showed that the defendant took several firearms, but he was only charged with the theft of two of the guns. In advising the jury that although the defendant took multiple guns, he was only charged with two counts of theft, the prosecution was explaining the instructions regarding what the jury must find to convict the defendant, namely that he took the two specific guns that were found in his bag. As such, the court affirmed the trial court’s verdict.
What Evidence is Sufficient for a Conviction in a Washington Weapons Case?
Although in some cases a person will be arrested during the commission of a crime, in many cases a person will be arrested after the alleged crime is committed, based on circumstantial evidence. While circumstantial evidence is admissible to prove guilt, the State must nonetheless produce sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.
Recently, a Washington appellate court analyzed the sufficiency of the evidence, in a case in which the defendant was convicted of unlawful possession and theft of a firearm.
It is reported that the victim, a 79-year-old man owned over two dozen guns that he stored in a locked gun cabinet. The victim’s neighbor noticed that a female acquaintance visited the victim on occasion. On a day in June 2017, the victim left the female acquaintance alone at the home. The neighbor then observed the defendant park a red minivan near the victim’s home, and subsequently run out of the back of the home with a large bundle. The neighbor called the police, who detained the defendant, and entered the home and observed several guns lying on the bed.
Allegedly, the victim returned home during the investigation but refused to enter the home and inspect his gun cabinet. The police released the defendant, but after the victim entered his home and realized several guns were missing, they located and arrested the defendant, who had a single round of ammunition in his pocket. Upon searching the defendant’s minivan, the police found a .22-caliber pistol, ammunition, and several gun cleaning supplies. The defendant was charged with and convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and theft of a firearm. He appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support either conviction.
Sufficiency of Evidence in Firearm Cases
On appeal, the court found there was sufficient evidence to uphold both convictions. The court stated that a person is guilty of theft of a firearm if he or steals any firearm and noted that the serial number and make and model of a gun are not elements of theft of a firearm. The State was nonetheless required to prove such identifying features beyond a reasonable doubt in the subject case, however, based on their inclusion in the jury instructions regarding the theft of a firearm charge. The court found that the State met this burden, as there was substantial evidence in support of a conviction.
The court noted, however, the identifying information was not included in the jury instructions as to the unlawful possession of a firearm charge. Therefore, the State was only required to prove that the defendant possessed a firearm and did not need to prove what particular firearm he possessed. As such, the court upheld the defendant’s conviction, despite the fact that the defendant was charged with possession of a .22-caliber revolver but was convicted due to the possession of a .22-caliber pistol.
Why Your Attorneys Must Make a Timely Objection to Inadmissible Evidence
In one case, The Washington Court of Appeals held that the failure to make a timely objection to inadmissible testimony regarding a victim’s credibility constituted a waiver of the objection.
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.
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.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals of The State of Washington
On appeal, the defendant argued the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when he asked the building employee and arresting officer their opinions as to whether the victim was credible. The court agreed that evidence that a witness’s story remained consistent is not admissible to substantiate the witness’s testimony, and therefore, the prosecutor’s behavior was improper. The court noted, however, that the defendant’s attorney failed to object to the prosecutor’s line of questioning or subsequent testimony, which constituted a waiver of the objection unless the defendant could prove there was a substantial likelihood it influenced the jury’s verdict. The court further held that where a defendant fails to object to inadmissible testimony, the defendant must prove the statements were so flagrant or ill-intentioned that an objection could not cure the prejudice. The court stated there was substantial evidence that corroborated the victim’s testimony. As such, the court found it was unlikely the inadmissible testimony affected the jury’s verdict. The court also noted that the defendant did not offer any evidence that a timely objection would be insufficient to cure any prejudice.
Consult a Skilled Defense Attorney
During trials for assault, the State will most likely attempt to introduce any evidence that demonstrates the defendant’s guilt, but not all evidence is admissible. In this case, perhaps the defense should have hired their own expert to rebut the State’s nurse. If you are charged with an assault crime, it is important to understand your rights, and you should consult an attorney as soon as possible. The skilled Tacoma criminal defense lawyers of The Law Offices of Smith & White can evaluate the evidence against you and formulate persuasive arguments on your behalf, to provide you with a strong chance of obtaining a favorable outcome. You can reach us via our form online or by calling us at (253) 203-1645 to set up a conference.