State v. Arredondo
| Decision Date | 04 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 92389-2,92389-2 |
| Citation | 188 Wash.2d 244,394 P.3d 348 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Fabian ARREDONDO, Petitioner. and Rudy Madrigal, Defendant. |
188 Wash.2d 244
394 P.3d 348
STATE of Washington, Respondent,
v.
Fabian ARREDONDO, Petitioner.
and
Rudy Madrigal, Defendant.
No. 92389-2
Supreme Court of Washington.
Argued Oct. 13, 2016
FILED May 4, 2017
As Amended on Denial of Reconsideration July 5, 2017
Oliver Ross Davis, Washington Appellate Project, 1511 3rd Ave., Ste. 701, Seattle, WA, 98101-3647, for Petitioner.
David Brian Trefry, Yakima County Prosecutor's Office, P.O. Box 4846, Spokane, WA, 99220-0846, Joseph Anthony Brusic, Yakima County Prosecutor's Office, 128 N. 2nd St., Rm. 329, Yakima, WA, 98901-2621, Jennifer Paige Joseph, King County Prosecutor's Office, 516 3rd Ave., Ste. W554, Seattle, WA, 98104-2362, for Respondent.
FAIRHURST, C.J.
¶1 Fabian Arredondo appeals his accomplice liability convictions of one count of second degree murder and three counts of first degree assault. A jury found beyond a reasonable
doubt that Arredondo, a Norteño gang member, drove a vehicle from which his cousin and
fellow Norteño, Rudy Madrigal, fired gunshots into a vehicle occupied by alleged Sureño gang members. One shot struck the driver, Ladislado Avila, in the head, and he later died at the hospital as a result of his gunshot wound.
¶2 The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Arredondo , 190 Wash.App. 512, 360 P.3d 920 (2015). We granted Arredondo's petition for review on only two issues, both of which were trial court rulings on motions in limine. State v. Arredondo , 185 Wash.2d 1024, 369 P.3d 502 (2016). First, the trial court allowed the State to introduce ER 404(b) evidence linking Arredondo to an uncharged February 9, 2009 drive-by shooting. Second, the trial court barred Arredondo from cross-examining the State's key witness, Maurice Simon, about Simon's past mental health diagnoses, as well as past alcohol and drug use. Simon would later testify that Arredondo admitted his role in the shooting to him while they shared a jail cell.
¶3 In neither instance did the trial court commit reversible error. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Factual background
¶4 Late in the evening of December 4, 2009, Arredondo and Madrigal attended a party in Toppenish along with other Norteños. Sureños Miguel Vasquez, Avila, and Gabriel Rodarte attended the party as well. The local Norteño and Sureño gangs have a history of bad blood. A fistfight ensued shortly after the Sureños arrived. Vasquez was involved and appeared to get the worst of it. Once the fistfight ended, partygoers dispersed. Rodarte, Vasquez, and Avila left together, along with Maximino Castillo, to whom they
offered a ride as they were leaving. Of these four, only Rodarte and Castillo testified at trial.1
¶5 Shortly after leaving the party, Avila and his passengers noticed a blue Honda with tinted windows headed in the opposite direction of their car. The Honda made a U-turn and began to follow them. This eventually led to a high speed chase. The chase terminated when someone in the Honda fired shots into Avila's car. The Toppenish Police Department received a shots fired call at 1:10 a.m. on December 5, 2009. One of the shots struck Avila in the head. He lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a tree. Avila later died at the hospital from his gunshot wound. His passengers were not seriously injured. Neither Rodarte nor Castillo could identify the Honda's occupants, other than to say they looked like two males.
¶6 On December 12, 2009, the Toppenish police recovered a vehicle matching the Honda used in the shooting. It was parked between two businesses on a gravel drive in Wapato and had been wiped clean of all incriminating evidence. The police were unable to recover fingerprint, deoxyribonucleic acid, or any other physical evidence from the vehicle.
¶7 Arredondo was arrested that same day based on statements from others who attended the party. They indicated Arredondo drove the Honda during the shooting. In the days following his arrest, Arredondo shared a cell with Simon in the Yakima County jail. Simon later claimed that during their time in the cell, Arredondo admitted his role in the shooting.
B. Motions in limine
¶8 Prior to the trial, Arredondo made a motion in limine to bar evidence the State sought to introduce pursuant to ER 404(b) of Arredondo's involvement in a previous drive-by
shooting with suspected Norteño/Sureño gang ties. He was never charged in the incident. Following offers of proof, the trial court ruled the State could present testimony from Detectives Dustin Dunn and Jaban Brownell relating to this incident for noncharacter purposes. It did so after finding that the evidence had probative value and that the "probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect." Suppl. to Oct. 10, 2011 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (SVRP) at 26-27.
¶9 Arredondo also made a motion in limine for the trial court to determine what scope limitations would apply to his cross-examination of Simon regarding Simon's previous mental health diagnoses and past drug and alcohol use. This motion followed a pretrial interview in which Simon indicated that he had previously been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health limitations. Simon also indicated in the interview that he had been an alcoholic and drug abuser in the past.
¶10 The court said it would withhold its ruling on the motion until it had a chance to "listen to [Simon] outside the presence of the jury." SVRP at 9. When that occurred, Simon described his past mental health diagnoses, short-term memory limitations, and previous drug and alcohol use. Simon also indicated that none of these issues would affect his testimony regarding Arredondo's admission. He further indicated that he had not used drugs or alcohol in the prior six to eight months. The court then barred inquiries during cross-examination into Simon's mental health or his past substance abuse because Simon did not appear currently impaired and evidence associated with previous limitations would be irrelevant, not probative, and highly prejudicial.
C. Arredondo's trial
¶11 Arredondo testified in his own defense and indicated he had no role in the December 5, 2009 shooting. He claimed he left the party with his friend Gabriel Limone in a white Chevrolet Impala and that they went directly to his uncle's
house from the party. Limone was not available to testify to confirm this account. Effrain Arredondo, Arredondo's uncle, was available. He testified that his nephew arrived at his house between 12:00 and 12:15 a.m. the morning of December 5, 2009 and did not leave again until 9:30 a.m. that same morning.
¶12 The State presented little evidence directly linking Arredondo to the shooting. As the trial court noted, the case had a "strong undercurrent of intimidation.... Many of the witnesses are—are visibly afraid to be here and to be testifying." 3 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Oct. 13, 2011) at 405. For example, Arredondo refused to say who at the party had firearms because it would be dangerous for him to "talk against another Norteno." 6 VRP (Oct. 19, 2011) at 789-90, 793.
¶13 Maria Marquez Vevallos was one of the only people to testify who had attended the party. She indicated that her brother, Alberto Marquez, owned a blue Honda Accord and he indicated that night that he lent it to some "homeys." 4 VRP (Oct. 17, 2011) at 544-45. She believed Arredondo was the "homey" her brother referenced. Id. at 548. She also indicated she had not seen the vehicle since the party. Her brother was not available to testify.
¶14 Consistent with an offer of proof previously provided by the State, Detectives Dunn and Brownell testified that on February 9, 2009, they were dispatched to the scene of a drive-by shooting in a known Sureño gang neighborhood. The victim claimed the shooting came from a vehicle resembling a Mercedes. Dunn located a .38 caliber spent shell casing at the scene. Two weeks later, Community Corrections Officer (CCO) Michael Hisey and Probation Officer Jim Stine visited Arredondo at his home regarding an unrelated matter. Upon arriving, they noticed a silver Mercedes. They located keys to the vehicle in Arredondo's pocket and, upon searching the vehicle, found a .38 caliber spent shell casing in the car. The Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory confirmed that the shell casing in the
Mercedes matched the one that Dunn recovered at the scene of the February 9, 2009 shooting and that both casings were fired from the same weapon.
¶15 Before Officer Dunn's testimony on the February 9, 2009 shooting, the trial court instructed the jury that his testimony could be used only for purposes of "issues of identity and motive and intent" and could not be used to determine if Arredondo "acted in a similar fashion on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crossguns
...instruction given did not make clear that the evidence could not be considered for propensity purposes. Cf. State v. Arredondo , 188 Wash.2d 244, 264, 394 P.3d 348 (2017) (prejudicial effect of prior acts evidence did not outweigh probative value where the court gave "repeated limiting inst......
-
City of Seattle v. Lange
...Br. at 47.64 CP at 626.65 CP at 659.66 CP at 657, 659.67 CP at 659.68 CP at 660.69 CP at 660.70 CP at 664-68.71 State v. Arredondo, 188 Wash.2d 244, 256, 394 P.3d 348 (2017) (citing Diaz v. State, 175 Wash.2d 457, 461-62, 285 P.3d 873 (2012) ; State v. Gresham, 173 Wash.2d 405, 419, 269 P.3......
-
State v. Dejesus
...to prove an element of the crime charged, and (4) weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect. State v. Arredondo, 188 Wash.2d 244, 256-57, 394 P.3d 348 (2017). A trial court need not specifically reference the preponderance of the evidence standard when performing an ER 404(b)......
-
State v. K.A.B.
...a party does not provide a citation to authority in support of a proposition, we may assume that none exists. State v. Arredondo , 188 Wash.2d 244, 262-63, 394 P.3d 348 (2017). K.A.B. has therefore failed to demonstrate that the juvenile court erred when it did not, of its own accord, consi......