State v. Ciskie

Decision Date17 March 1988
Docket NumberNo. 53458-6,53458-6
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Darrell Paul CISKIE, Appellant.
William K. Thayer, Thomas C. Phelan, Vancouver, for appellant

Appelwick, Trickey, Sluiter & Spicer, Michael J. Trickey, Seattle, amicus curiae for appellant Washington Ass'n of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Northwest Women's Law Center, Deborah Whipple, Seattle, amicus curiae for respondent Northwest Women's Law Center.

UTTER, Justice.

In this case, the trial court admitted expert testimony to assist the jury in understanding the behavior and mental state of a crime victim. The victim alleged she had been raped at least 4 times while engaged in a relationship with the appellant which lasted over a period of almost 23 months. In State v. Allery, 101 Wash.2d 591, 682 P.2d 312 (1984), this court held that in the applicable circumstances where a murder defendant raises a claim of self-defense, the defense may offer expert testimony to assist the jury in assessing the defendant's perception of the threat posed by the murder victim at the time of the homicide. Here we have the question of when, if ever, the State may appropriately offer the same type of expert testimony to assist the trier of fact in understanding the mental state of a crime victim.

At the heart of this issue is the question of whether we will extend the benefit of concepts this court has applied to defendants charged with a crime to those who are victims of a crime. Neither logic nor law requires us to deny victims an opportunity to explain to a jury, through a qualified expert, the reasons for conduct which would otherwise be beyond the average juror's understanding.

The trial court acted properly under the provisions of ER 702. Other claims of error in admission of testimony, jury instructions, claims of prosecutorial misconduct and of ineffective assistance of counsel are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.

The parties largely agree on the facts, but for those comprising the assaults. Appellant Darrell Ciskie and the victim, C.H., met on November 24, 1981, at a lounge. They began an intimate relationship that evening that continued into October of 1983. C.H., a 55-year-old bookkeeper, had been divorced once, after a 29-year marriage, and had 3 grown children. Some 11 months before meeting Ciskie, she underwent mastectomy surgery for cancer. She testified that Ciskie was the first man she was involved with for any period of time since her divorce. At the time they met, Ciskie was employed as a car salesman. Ciskie was fired In October 1982, their relationship began to change. Ciskie displayed fits of anger. He frequently asked C.H. for money and the use of her car. She testified she attempted to "cool" the relationship, but Ciskie harassed her, calling her repeatedly on the telephone at her own home and while she visited friends. Yet, despite this, she would see him when he asked her. She took him to meals, frequently let him use her car, cleaned for him, took him to the liquor store, and occasionally slept with him. During this time she attempted to persuade Ciskie to go to Alcoholics Anonymous.

                from his job in July 1982 (about 7 months into the relationship) for drinking too much.   He spent many nights at C.H.'s house, although, at her insistence, he always maintained a separate residence.   Her sons testified that when they first met him, they had a favorable impression of Ciskie as a nice, friendly person
                

The sexual activity in the relationship continued, but changed in character. C.H. testified that on January 12, 1983, they had a "big fight" after Ciskie had been drinking. She testified they had a "physical fight, because I didn't want to go to bed with him. And I lost." Report of Proceedings, at 151. C.H. testified that the next day Ciskie called her "at least eight times." Report of Proceedings, at 152. She said that during the calls Ciskie would apologize for what he had done, and tell her he'd never hurt her again. This incident was not the basis of criminal charges.

Two days after this alleged assault, C.H. and Ciskie took wine to another couple's home and the four of them went to a restaurant. She explained that she "felt sorry for him," that he hadn't a friend in the world, and that "there was not one other person in this world that would help him." Report of Proceedings, at 162.

The incidents that comprised the 4 counts of rape of which Ciskie was ultimately convicted occurred on January 28, April 9, July 3, and October 15, 1983. Evidence which the jury was entitled to believe showed the following. On January 28, 1983, Ciskie called to complain that he had A few days later, Ciskie telephoned, apologizing and promising to go to Alcoholics Anonymous. C.H. and a son and grandson took Ciskie to the Clark County Alcohol Center the next day. This pattern of relatively amicable interactions, increasing tension, and violent sexual attacks was repeated throughout the remainder of the relationship. On April 9 and July 3, 1983, C.H. testified Ciskie forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. She testified she felt she had a choice of being raped, or fighting and risking injury or death, and therefore submitted. These incidents were charged as counts 3 and 4 of the information, respectively. Ciskie called within a few days after each incident to apologize and ask for favors or a visit.

                nothing to eat, and to ask her to take him shopping.   C.H. arrived to find him drunk, disheveled and unshaven, and went to the store herself because of his condition.   When she returned with groceries, Ciskie locked the door, and told her he had decided to kill her.   Ciskie produced a 9-inch, wooden-handled fillet knife from between the box springs and the mattress, and told C.H. he had decided that if he could not have her, no one else could.   The victim testified Ciskie held the knife and ordered her to disrobe.   She complied, crying and pleading.   C.H. testified Ciskie threatened to gouge her eyes out, and to put the knife into her vagina and twist it if she didn't comply with his commands.   He also threatened to cut her other breast off.   He then forced her to have intercourse, after which he passed out.   C.H. hid the knife in a closet, threw on her coat and pants, carried her shoes and the rest of her clothing, and ran out of the apartment
                

Ciskie telephoned several times on October 15, 1983, asking for money. Although C.H. told him not to, he drove to her home and helped himself to several large glasses of bourbon from a bottle she had set out for friends earlier. C.H. testified Ciskie continued to talk, and she remained silent and listened, fearful of beginning an argument. He told her to drink, despite her protestation that she did not wish to drink in his presence, and her repeated assertions C.H. testified Ciskie then proceeded to threaten and then to assault her sexually in a violent and humiliating fashion, striking her in the face, engaging in forcible sodomy and fellatio. Although C.H. was in considerable pain and fear, Ciskie twisted her breast with his hand and forced her to tell him that she enjoyed what he was doing. He put his fingers in her vagina and said "I'm just going to rip you clear apart." Report of Proceedings, at 329. He pulled her by the hair to force her to do as he wished, and threatened to return the next evening with more men to assault her again. When C.H. needed to go to the bathroom during the evening he went with her and held her by the arm to keep her there. She testified that he berated her constantly, calling her a "fucking bitch," and saying "[a]ll your girlfriends are fucking bitches." Report of Proceedings, at 332.

                that she did not want him to be there.   Ciskie rubbed her neck, and said he wished to go to bed with her.   C.H. repeatedly said she did not want to.   Ciskie took her by the arm, and C.H. followed him to the bedroom without resisting because she was afraid
                

C.H. testified she could not escape during the night because he held her, and when he dozed off he kept an arm and leg over her body. When she did try to escape, he would wake and begin to abuse her again. Finally, they both fell asleep. C.H. said at around 9:30 a.m. she grabbed her bathrobe and unlocked and opened the patio door so that she would have an escape route. She testified she retreated 20 feet into her entry hall, and shouted at Ciskie to get up and leave. He asked for coffee and a shower, but she continued to shout at him, and he left.

C.H. testified she locked all the doors, tying the front door shut. She noticed an article on the front page of the newspaper about a domestic dispute that culminated in a murder. C.H. testified: "I just started reading it and I said to myself, '[I]f you don't do something right now, your kids are going to be reading your name in the paper. Just like this.' " Report of Proceedings, at 335. C.H. telephoned a At trial, the defense characterized C.H.'s presentation as overstated dramatics. In his opening statement (made before the State presented its case), defense counsel attacked C.H.'s credibility, describing the State's case as "exaggerated" and "carefully rehearsed." Opening Statements, at 23. Several witnesses testified to having seen C.H. during the period at issue with bruises and lacerations. Ciskie testified that the victim "got marks on her--gets marks on her real easy" from minor accidents. Report of Proceedings, at 885.

friend who is a deputy sheriff, and this prosecution followed.

Defense counsel told the jury in his opening statement that

[t]he evidence will show that [C.H.] was actually not a dependent-trapped woman, as [the prosecutor] would have you believe, but that she was an independent woman; hardly a prisoner in her own home.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
164 cases
  • Saldivar v. Momah
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 2008
    ...to diagnose victims of domestic violence as suffering from battered woman's syndrome, a subcategory of PTSD. See State v. Ciskie, 110 Wash.2d 263, 279, 751 P.2d 1165 (1988); see also Allery, 101 Wash.2d at 596, 682 P.2d 312. And there is a reasonable correlation between victims of domestic ......
  • State v. Ortuno-Perez
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • November 28, 2016
    ...95 S.Ct. 2550. ¶67 Allowing attorneys to argue inferences from the evidence is a rudimentary aspect of this right. State v. Ciskie, 110 Wash.2d 263, 283, 751 P.2d 1165 (1988). "[C]ounsel must be afforded ‘the utmost freedom in the argument of the case’ and ‘some latitude in the discussion o......
  • State v. Ray
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 2020
    ...Id.1 ¶ 48 The Washington Supreme Court has come to a different conclusion with regard to general testimony. In State v. Ciskie , 110 Wash.2d 263, 280, 751 P.2d 1165 (1988), the court allowed general expert testimony on the aspects of post-traumatic stress disorder specifically relevant to s......
  • State v. Fisher
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • March 12, 2009
    ...the testimony. ¶ 43 The State may offer evidence of prior misconduct to rebut an assertion by the defendant. State v. Ciskie, 110 Wash.2d 263, 281, 751 P.2d 1165 (1988) (holding defendant's phone call to his ex-wife announcing his intent to kill the victim was not an "unrelated act of misco......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT