State v. ALLEN S.

Decision Date17 December 1999
Docket NumberNo. 22642-1-II.,22642-1-II.
Citation98 Wash.App. 452,989 P.2d 1222
CourtWashington Court of Appeals
PartiesSTATE of Washington, Respondent, v. ALLEN S., Appellant.

Manek R. Mistry, Jodi R. Backlund, Backlund & Mistry (Court Appointed), Olympia, for Appellant.

Cynthia Cecilia Szeker, Clallam Co. Pros. Ofc., Seattle, for Respondent.

MORGAN, J.

The question in this appeal is whether a party may impeach a person who claims at trial not to remember anything relevant to the case. The answer is no.

S is the father of two sons, J and B. J is the older, B is the younger.

Sometime before April 5, 1996, J alleged that S had been sexually abusing him. S was then arrested and jailed. The same evening, B was asked by his grandmother whether anyone "had touched him where they wasn't [sic] supposed to."1 B replied, "[N]o."2

On April 5, 1996, B was interviewed by Deputy Larry Dunn of the Clallam County Sheriff's Department. According to Dunn's later testimony, Dunn asked B "if his dad had touched him in a way that made him uncomfortable such as touching his privates."3 B responded, "[M]y dad didn't do any nothing [sic]."4

Later in the day on April 5, B asked to see Dunn again. During this second interview, B said, "[M]y dad raped me."5 B said he had omitted this from the first interview "[b]ecause I was scared."6

On April 8, 1996, B was seen by a pediatrician. B told her that his father had "put his privates in my butt and in my mouth almost every day for three years."7 She observed "multiple bruises and scrapes of varying ages on his body,"8 but no physical signs of "trauma... to [the] rectum."9 She thought that "a normal exam can be compatible with chronic sodomy because of the normal healing capacity of the rectum."10

On February 21, 1997, the State charged S with the first degree child rape of B (Count I) and the second degree child rape of J (Count II). The rape of B was alleged to have occurred on or about April 2, 1996.

In April 1997, a jury acquitted on Count II but could not reach a verdict on Count I. The State sought a retrial on Count I. It also alleged for the first time that S was a persistent offender.

In May 1997, Josh Spry was an inmate in the Clallam County Jail. He had a felony record and was again facing felony charges. He asked to be interviewed by a sheriff's deputy, and on May 22 Deputy Charles Fuchser responded. Spry told Fuchser that "he was willing to provide information about [S] and others so he could cut himself a better deal."11 Fuchser did not agree to a deal, but Spry nonetheless described jailhouse conversations between himself and S. In those conversations, according to Spry, S had admitted to getting "high on crank" and doing "some fucked up things to his children."12 Fuchser sent the prosecutor a police report that incorporated Spry's comments.

Retrial commenced on September 30, 1997. Witnesses included B, Dunn, Spry, and Fuchser. B testified that on a "whole bunch" of occasions,13 S had "stuck his privates in my butt."14 Pain had resulted, and his "butt" had "bled."15 The most recent occurrence was about three days before S's arrest.

Before Spry took the stand, the prosecutor told the court, outside the presence of the jury, that she had recently tried to interview Spry at the state prison where Spry was presently incarcerated. Spry had told her that she "would hear what he had to say when he took the witness stand."16 As a result, she was concerned about what Spry would say in front of the jury, and she wanted to preview his testimony out of the presence of the jury. She stated:

... [W]hat I would like to do to clarify any problems before we get in front of the jury is have Mr. Spry in here, allow him to read the report that Det. Fuchser made which is one and a quarter pages of what Mr. Spry told Det. Fuchser ... and ask him if that is what he intends to testify to and, if he says yes, have him testify. If he says no, I am sunk. If he testifies other than ... he says he is going to testify ... I think I should be allowed to put Det. Fuchser on for impeachment and the jury is entitled to a limiting instruction.[17]

After a question from the court, the prosecutor reiterated:

... I think perhaps the best way to handle it [is] out of the presence of the jury, give him an opportunity to read what he told Fuchser and, if he denies saying it, we don't have a witness. If he says he is going to testify to what is here, we put him on the witness stand and, if he does so, we don't need Det. Fuchser. If he doesn't testify as to what is here, then I will need Det. Fuchser.[18]

The trial court declined to preview Spry's testimony outside the presence of the jury. Instead, it directed the prosecutor to use the following procedure in front of the jury:

If Mr. Spry gets on the witness stand and says nothing happened, nothing was said to me, under [ER] 613 you can [ask] him; Did you not tell Fuchser in an interview that [S] said this to you. If he denies that, then you can bring on Fuchser. If he admits that, then we are done. That is the way. But you will have to first ask him... what occurred in jail between he and [S] and did [S] say anything and, if he testifies to what he says in the report, fine. If not, you can use the report to ask him whether or not he made some other statements to Deputy Fuchser.[19]

When the jury came back in the courtroom, Spry testified as follows:

Q: Do you recall talking to Det. Fuchser and Officer Kovatch about statements that [S] made to you?
A: No, I don't recall.20
...
Q: Did you tell Det. Fuchser and Officer Kovatch that you were going to try to work out some kind of a deal of some kind?
A: I just told you I don't recall talking to detectives about any of those statements you told me I made. I told you that the other day and I tell you the same thing now.[21]
...
Q: Did you tell Deputy Fuchser that the defendant, [S], told you that he did some things to his kids when he was high on crank?
A: I don't recall saying nothing like that.
Q: Did you tell Fuchser that [S] told you that he doesn't know everything that he did because he was blacked out?
A: Again, I don't recall saying anything like that.
Q: Do you recall telling Fuchser that [S] told you that he quote "did fuck around with my kids but part had to do with me being on crank and part had to do with me blacking out"?
A: (Witness shakes head back and forth.)
Q: You don't recall telling the deputy that?
A: I don't recall.[22]

In accordance with the trial court's earlier direction, the prosecutor then called Fuchser. He testified:

Q: [D]id you have a conversation in the Clallam County Jail with a person known to you as Joshwa Spry?
A: Yes, I did.[23]
...
Q: Could you tell us exactly ... what the defendant [S] told Spry that the defendant did?
A: He said that he did ___ and I will quote ___ he said that "he did some fucked up things to his children."
....
Q: What else did Mr. Spry tell you that [S] told Mr. Spry?
A: He said that he didn't remember everything he did because he was high on crank.
Q: Did Mr. Spry tell you anything else that [S] told him?
A: He said that he had talked to him again about the same thing. Information was basically the same.[24]

At the end of the evidence, the trial court gave a limiting instruction. It stated:

Evidence has been introduced in this case by Deputy Charles Fuchser on the subject of Joshua Spry's testimony for the limited purpose of impeaching Joshua Spry. You must not consider this evidence for any other purpose.[25]

The jury convicted, and the trial court imposed a sentence of life without possibility of parole. S then filed this appeal, in which we consider one dispositive issue, two additional issues that could affect the remedy on appeal, and one issue that is likely to recur on retrial.

I.

The dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred by admitting, through Fuchser's testimony, the out-of-court statements that Spry made to Fuchser on May 22. S says yes, while the State says no.

Fuchser's testimony was admitted to impeach Spry's testimony. Thus, we analyze (A) who can impeach; (B) who can be impeached; and (C) the nature of the evidence by which impeachment can be accomplished. Then, we apply our analysis to the facts here.

A.

ER 607 addresses the question of who can impeach. It provides, "The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness." It eliminates Washington's old rule that a party cannot impeach his or her own witness—even if the witness' credibility is a fact of consequence to the action—unless the party is surprised and damaged.26 ER 607 has nothing to do with the question of who can be impeached, and it does not permit a person to be impeached when his or her credibility is not a fact of consequence to the action.

B.

Who can be impeached is a question associated with relevance. Under ER 402, all evidence must be relevant. Under ER 401, evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency" to make more or less probable than otherwise a fact of consequence to the action.

Evidence offered to impeach is relevant only if (1) it tends to cast doubt on the credibility of the person being impeached, and (2) the credibility of the person being impeached is a fact of consequence to the action. The second of these elements is the question of who can be impeached. If a person's credibility is a fact of consequence to the action, the jury needs to assess it, and impeaching evidence may be helpful. If a person's credibility is not a fact of consequence to the action, the jury does not need to assess it, and impeaching evidence could not be helpful. Thus, a person may be impeached if his or her credibility is a fact of consequence to the action,27 but not if his or her credibility is not a fact of consequence to the action.

Five cases illustrate when a person's credibility is not a fact of consequence to the action. In State v. Robbins,28 a man named Leader was called to the stand. He...

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • State  v. Gasteazoro–Paniagua
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • February 20, 2013
    ...because “ ‘a person who speaks inconsistently is thought to be less credible than a person who does not.’ ” State v. Allen S., 98 Wash.App. 452, 467, 989 P.2d 1222 (1999) (quoting State v. Williams, 79 Wash.App. 21, 26–27, 902 P.2d 1258 (1995)), review denied,140 Wash.2d 1022, 10 P.3d 405 (......
  • In re Detention of Davenport
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • August 5, 2010
    ... In re the Detention of William Davenport, aka William Cummings STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM DAVENPORT, aka WILLIAM CUMMINGS, Appellant. In re the Detention of William Davenport, aka WILLIAM ... impeached, and that person's credibility is a fact of ... consequence to the action. See State v. Allen S. , 98 ... Wn.App. 452, 459-60, 989 P.2d 1222 (1999). ER 608(b) provides ... that specific instances of a witness's conduct, ... ...
  • State Of Wash. v. Davenport
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • August 5, 2010
    ...of the person being impeached, and that person's credibility is a fact of consequence to the action. See State v. Allen S., 98 Wn. App. 452, 459-60, 989 P.2d 1222 (1999). ER 608(b) provides that specific instances of a witness's conduct, introduced for the purpose of attacking the witness's......
  • Dedman v. Wash. Personnel Appeals Bd.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 1999
    ... ... Ofc. Labor & Pers., Olympia, for Respondents ...         Mark Spencer Lyon, Olympia, for Appellant ...         Richard Allen Heath, Sr. Assistant Attorney General, Olympia, for Wash. State Personnel Appeals Board ...         HUNT, J ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Appellate Practice Deskbook (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...State v. Allen, 27 Wn. App. 41, 615 P.2d 526, review denied, 94 Wn.2d 1025 (1980): 11.7(9)(a) State v. Allen S., 98 Wn. App. 452, 989 P.2d 1222 (1999), review denied, 140 Wn.2d 1022 (2000): 5.2(1)(b) State v. Alton, 89 Wn.2d 737, 575 P.2d 234 (1978): 11.5(4) State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556......
  • § 5.2 Who Initiates Review
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Appellate Practice Deskbook (WSBA) Chapter 5 Initiating Review- Who, Where, When, and How
    • Invalid date
    ...aggrieved as to some issues may not seek review of issues as to which it is not aggrieved. State v. Allen S., 98 Wn. App. 452, 470 n.72, 989 P.2d 1222 (1999) (Court of Appeals declined to consider a claim that trial court improperly barred testimony when record did not reflect that the test......

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