State v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 30 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 82703-1-I |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JAMAL LEWIS ALEXANDER, Appellant |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Jamal Alexander appeals his conviction for first degree murder challenging several evidentiary rulings made at trial and the validity of the search warrant and subsequent search of his cell phone. We conclude the trial court erred in excluding evidence that another person admitted to committing the crime, an evidentiary error that was not harmless. We also conclude the trial court made other evidentiary errors that may recur on remand. We reject Alexander's arguments that the search warrant was overbroad or that the search was untimely, but conclude the police exceeded the scope of the warrant by looking at photographs outside the warrant's specified date range without first obtaining permission to conduct such a broad search. We reverse Alexander's conviction and remand for a new trial.
Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material.
On the evening of October 11, 2019, Alexander paid for consensual sex with S.B. near a parking lot of the Cedar Creek Apartments in Everett, Washington. Surveillance footage from the apartment complex captured S.B. and Alexander, wearing an Oakland Raiders hat, a Puma jacket, and Vans shoes, entering the apartment complex parking lot shortly after 9 p.m walking together to the far end of that lot and disappearing behind a parked van. The same footage showed Alexander appearing, alone, from behind that van and walking slowly out of the parking lot at 9:34 p.m. Alexander can be seen in the video holding his cell phone to his ear. Additional surveillance video from a city bus captured Alexander board a bus, without his Oakland Raiders hat, and sit quietly looking down at the cell phone in his hand. Alexander exited the bus a few minutes later and stopped briefly at a gas station where he was last recorded.
The next morning, a resident of the apartment complex found S.B.'s naked body on a dirt path behind the complex when he took his dog outside for a walk. Her clothes had been torn off and she had multiple injuries to her head and neck. The cause of S.B.'s death was identified as blunt force trauma to her head and neck. The medical examiner determined that some of her injuries were likely caused by the victim having been stomped with the sole of a shoe.
Police found Alexander's Oakland Raiders hat, splattered with S.B.'s blood, near her body. Forensic testing revealed the DNA from several individuals on S.B.'s body including that of Alexander found inside S.B.'s bra and on the neckline of her dress.
Police saw a number of footprints around S.B.'s body and believed that the nearby blackberry bushes showed signs of a struggle. The police summoned a team of trackers, led by Bob Brady, who evaluated the crime scene. According to Brady, the footprints at the scene of the crime were consistent with Vans shoes and consistent with the shoe print on S.B.'s face and neck.
Police tracked the footprints and what appeared to be drops of blood from the body, down a trail, to one of the nearby apartment buildings, where investigators found similar footprints on the threshold of apartment F203. Brady concluded that these footprints appeared to travel away from the body to the apartment building and then back. A search of the apartment led to the discovery of evidence of drug dealing, but no evidence connecting the apartment to the murder.
On October 13, 2019, S.B.'s boyfriend, Vernon Butsch, called the police to report that he had run into Caterina Roy and her boyfriend Angel,[1] who lived in apartment F203 and sold drugs to S.B. Butsch told police that "they said sorry about your loss for beating her to death but we don't care-move on." Butsch said Roy described "how they carried her bruised bloody body [and] dropped her on the dirt to die for good." According to Alexander's trial attorney, when police interviewed Roy at the apartment complex, she admitted she had spoken with Butsch but denied any knowledge of S.B.'s death. Roy refused to testify at trial and the trial court excluded as hearsay any testimony about what Roy reportedly told Butsch.
On October 17, 2019, police questioned Alexander about his involvement in S.B.'s murder. Alexander admitted he had solicited sex from S.B. and left his Oakland Raiders hat behind, but he insisted S.B. was alive when he left her. Police confronted Alexander with photos from a convenience store Alexander had visited after leaving S.B. The images showed red stains on the bottom of one of Alexander's shoes which the police believed to be blood. Alexander claimed he had stepped in a Bang Energy drink causing the stain. The State produced evidence from Bang that none of its drinks contains red dye. Alexander also assured police officers that they would find the clothes he wore that evening-the Puma jacket, pants, and Vans shoes-in his home but police could not find these items.
A jury convicted Alexander of first-degree murder. Alexander appeals.
Alexander first argues the trial court erred in excluding evidence that (1) Roy implicated herself and her boyfriend in the crime; (2) S.B. wrote an entry in her diary dated 10 p.m. on the night of her murder-after Alexander had left her- suggesting she was still alive when he left her at 9:34 p.m.; and (3) the diary entry revealed that a drug dealer named Rocky was upset with S.B. for stealing drugs from him, creating a motive for killing her. He further argues that even if the evidence was inadmissible, excluding such probative evidence denied him the right to present a defense.
We conclude the trial court erred in excluding some, but not all, of this evidence and the erroneous evidentiary rulings were not harmless. We otherwise reject his constitutional argument.
The United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution guarantee defendants the right to present a defense. U.S. Const., amend. VI, XIV; Wash. Const., art. I, § 3; State v. Wittenbarger, 124 Wn.2d 467, 474, 880 P.2d 517 (1994). To determine whether the exclusion of evidence violates a defendant's constitutional right to present a defense, we engage in a two-part analysis. State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 797-98, 453 P.3d 696 (2019); State v. Clark, 187 Wn.2d 641, 648-49, 389 P.3d 462 (2017). First, we review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. State v. Jennings, 199 Wn.2d 53, 58, 502 P.3d 1255 (2022). A trial court abuses its discretion if no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Id. at 59. Second, we determine whether such rulings violated a defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment de novo. Clark, 187 Wn.2d at 648-49.
Alexander first contends that the trial court erred in excluding Roy's self-incriminating statements to Butsch under ER 804(b)(3). We agree.
Hearsay, out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is inadmissible unless an exception or exclusion applies. ER 802. We review a trial court's ruling on the applicability of a hearsay exception for an abuse of discretion. State v. Rodriquez, 187 Wn.App. 922, 939, 352 P.3d 200 (2015). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is "manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons." Id.
Under ER 804(b)(3), a statement against interest is admissible if it:
was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless the person believed it to be true. In a criminal case, a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.
Inculpatory statements against a declarant's penal interest are admissible if (1) the declarant is unavailable, (2) the declarant's statement tends to subject them to criminal liability to such an extent that a reasonable person would not have made it unless they believed it was true, and (3) the statement is corroborated by circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness. State v. J.K.T., 11 Wn.App. 2d 544, 566, 455 P.3d 173 (2019). Courts should look to the following criteria when evaluating the trustworthiness of such statements:
State v. McDonald, 138 Wn.2d 680, 694, 981 P.2d 443 (1999). The trial court's decision on the reliability of such statements is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 696. If the statement is offered by the defendant, "the presumption is admissibility and not exclusion." State v. Roberts, 142 Wn.2d 471, 497, 14 P.3d 713 (2000).
The trial court found, and the State concedes, that Roy refused to testify and was...
To continue reading
Request your trial