State v. Beadle

Decision Date03 November 2011
Docket NumberNo. 84204–3.,84204–3.
Citation173 Wash.2d 97,265 P.3d 863
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Steven Allen BEADLE, Petitioner.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Eric J. Nielsen, Nielsen Broman & Koch PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Colin Patrick Hayes, Lewis County Prosecutor's Office, Chehalis, WA, for Respondent.

MADSEN, C.J.

[173 Wash.2d 100] ¶ 1 Steven Beadle appeals his convictions for child molestation in the first degree. At a pretrial child hearsay hearing, the alleged victim, four-year-old B.A.,1 had what appeared to be a serious emotional breakdown and refused to testify. The court found the child unavailable to testify at trial and admitted her out-of-court disclosures to family members, mental health providers, a child protective services worker, and a law enforcement officer, pursuant to RCW 9A.44.120.

[173 Wash.2d 101] ¶ 2 Beadle appealed, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error in finding B.A. unavailable and in admitting the child hearsay statements. He also argued that the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant and unduly prejudicial evidence of B.A.'s emotional breakdown. The Court of Appeals affirmed Beadle's convictions. We also affirm.

FACTS

¶ 3 In January 2006, three-year-old daughter, B.A., announced to her mother, Lisa Burgess (Burgess) that her “potty” hurt.2 I Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Jan. 30, 2008) at 40. When questioned, B.A. explained that Beadle, Burgess' live-in boyfriend, had tried to put his “tail” inside her. 3 Id. at 31. In response to her daughter's disclosure, Burgess “freaked out” and immediately confronted Beadle in B.A.'s presence. Id. B.A. began to cry. According to Burgess, Beadle “also cried, he freaked out screaming at her, do you love daddy, daddy's going to go away to prison for life if you say something like this to anybody.” Id. B.A. appeared frightened by this outburst. Shortly thereafter, Beadle was incarcerated on an unrelated matter, and he had no further access to B.A.

¶ 4 Around April 2006, Burgess noticed that B.A. had begun drawing pictures depicting “tails.” According to Burgess, she would say it or draw it and then she would instantly throw it away or crumple it up or scribble over it. And she would always say, ‘I don't want to get in trouble.’ Id. at 37.

¶ 5 In February 2007, B.A. made another drawing of a “tail” and told Damon Burgess (Damon),4 Burgess's husband, what it depicted. When Damon asked B.A. whose “tail” she had drawn, she replied that it was Beadle's “tail” and that Beadle had helped her wash her hands after touching it, because “it was all sticky.” Id. at 69. Damon asked B.A. to demonstrate how she had touched Beadle's “tail,” and B.A. stroked Damon's finger. Throughout this exchange, B.A. seemed extremely anxious about getting in trouble.

¶ 6 Detective Carl Buster, a detective at the Centralia Police Department and Ronnie Jensen, a Child Protective Services (CPS) worker, interviewed B.A. the next day. Jensen was present to assist the police department with the interview. Id. at 104. Initially, Jensen found B.A. happy and outgoing. However, when Detective Buster asked B.A. if she knew why she was there, she “immediately shut down.” Id. at 106. When Jensen used a sheet of paper to shield Detective Buster from B.A.'s view, B.A. told Jensen that she had touched Beadle's tail and that it felt “squishy” and had gotten wet. Id. at 108. She pointed to the crotch of a stuffed bear to show Jensen where Beadle's “tail” was located.

¶ 7 Burgess sought counseling for B.A. at Cascade Mental Health Care. During the initial assessment, B.A. told Cary McAdams, a licensed mental health clinician, that she had touched Beadle's “tail” on three occasions and that she sometimes sat on his lap with a towel, with his “tail” between them. She also described her “potty” hurting. In one therapy session, B.A. picked up a male doll and a baby doll and, without prompting, offered to show her therapist, Margaret Heriot, what Beadle had done. She performed the demonstration under the table, explaining that she was “embarrassed.” Id. at 49.

¶ 8 B.A. was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and sexual abuse of a child.5 Id. at 81. According to Heriot,

[t]he symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder that she exhibited was she was afraid of men, she was very clingy, she was very afraid to be left alone from her mother, she didn't want to be away from her mother. She had bad dreams. She had started urinating on herself, which [sic] she was totally potty trained, and she had a couple of accidents, that's another symptom. She's very anxious, worried about a lot of things, checking constantly, asking the same question over and over again, where are we going, what are we going to do now, are you okay, with her mother, a lot of anxiety.Id. at 96. Heriot also indicated that children who are sexually abused by a family member often feel conflicted toward their abuser, harboring negative feelings about the abuse but at the same time, feeling close to the abuser and enjoying the attention. Heriot opined that B.A. displayed such conflicting feelings and had developed a “trauma bond” with Beadle. I VRP (Suppression Hr'g, Nov. 16, 2007) at 19.

¶ 9 Beadle was charged by third amended information with three identical counts of child molestation in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty on all three counts.

¶ 10 A three-day pretrial child hearsay hearing was held in the Lewis County Superior Court. According to Heriot, as the date of the hearing approached, B.A. grew increasingly reticent in therapy, refusing to discuss the abuse and insisting that she was finished discussing the topic. Heriot indicated that this behavior was typical of children who have been abused and that talking about abuse after the fact is “a very scary thing for them to do.” Id. at 23.

¶ 11 On the first day of the hearing, B.A. refused to enter the courtroom. Instead, according to Jensen, “when it came to actually walking to the door, [B.A.] just crumbled, ran to a corner, stayed in that corner for about an hour crying and just refused to talk.” I VRP (Jan. 30, 2008) at 55. Several adults tried to coax B.A. out of the corner, but she remained “balled up in a fetal position in the corner of one of the seats out in the hallway with her head buried between the seat and the wall,” refused to make eye contact with anyone, and hid her face under her hair. Id. at 112. Eventually, Jensen was able to calm B.A., but she remained steadfast in her refusal to testify.

¶ 12 Later in the day, the State again attempted to convince B.A. to testify, but B.A. refused. The State proposed a procedure by which B.A. would testify via a victim advocate, should she agree to testify later in the proceedings.6 Just before the hearing was adjourned, the prosecutor informed the court that B.A. was “willing to come into the courtroom.” I VRP (Suppression Hr'g, Nov. 16, 2007) at 47. However, citing a busy docket, the court adjourned the hearing for the day.

¶ 13 On the second day of the hearing, the State attempted again to persuade B.A. to “come in the courtroom.” II VRP (Suppression Hr'g, Nov. 20, 2007) at 45. The prosecutor asked the court if Burgess could be present in the courtroom when and if B.A. took the stand. The court assented. However, after a break in proceedings, the State reported that B.A. remained unwilling to enter the courtroom.

¶ 14 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that B.A. was unavailable to testify, citing the “substantial amount of crying and screaming coming from the public portion of the hallway outside the courtroom door” on the first day of the hearing and noting that B.A. had resisted “any and all attempts to bring her into the courtroom.” III VRP (Suppression Hr'g, Dec. 19, 2007) at 24. In a subsequent written order, the trial court also noted that B.A. had been diagnosed with PTSD and sexual abuse of a child. In its written order, the trial court held that “the evidence does not suggest that [B.A.] may be able to testify by the use of closed-circuit television pursuant to RCW 9A.44.150.” Clerk's Papers (CP) at 42.7 Beadle did not object to these rulings.8

¶ 15 In addition, the trial court held that under State v. Shafer, 156 Wash.2d 381, 128 P.3d 87 (2006), B.A.'s disclosures to Jensen and Detective Buster, like her other out-of-court statements, were nontestimonial. Finally, the court held that B.A.'s out-of-court statements were admissible under RCW 9A.44.120 because the surrounding circumstances provided sufficient indicia of reliability, and B.A.'s allegations were supported by corroborative evidence.

¶ 16 On the first day of trial, the State brought a motion in limine to introduce evidence as to B.A.'s “complete breakdown” on the first day of the child hearsay hearing. I VRP (Jan. 30, 2008) at 13. Over Beadle's objection, the court allowed the State to introduce limited testimony regarding B.A.'s resistance to testifying.

¶ 17 The jury convicted Beadle of two counts of first degree child molestation and acquitted him of the third count. In addition, the jury returned special verdicts finding that Beadle had used his position of trust or confidence in committing both counts of child molestation and that both counts were part of an ongoing pattern of sexual abuse. The court imposed an exceptional sentence.

¶ 18 On appeal, Beadle challenged the trial court's finding that B.A. was unavailable to testify. Br. of Appellant at 1. Beadle also contended that the trial court had erred in admitting “irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial” evidence of B.A.'s behavior at the courthouse and that the admission of testimonial hearsay statements violated his right to confrontation. Id.

¶ 19 After oral argument, the Court of Appeals requested supplemental briefing on the application of State v. Smith to the instant case. Suppl. Br. of Appellant at 1; State v. Smith, 148 Wash.2d 122, 139, 59 P.3d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
80 cases
  • State v. Rowland
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 2018
    ... ... considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless ... presentation of cumulative evidence. ER 403. A danger of ... unfair prejudice exists when "evidence is likely to ... stimulate an emotional response rather than a rational ... decision." State v. Beadle , 173 Wn.2d 97, 120, ... 265 P.3d 863 (2011). "[T]he burden of demonstrating ... unfair prejudice is on the party seeking to exclude the ... evidence." State v. Burkins , 94 Wn.App. 677, ... 692, 973 P.2d 15 (1999). Under ER 403, "police officers ... are allowed to ... ...
  • In re l Hacheney
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 2012
    ...noted that this test applies in the context of police interrogations. Davis, 547 U.S. at 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266; State v. Beadle, 173 Wash.2d 97, ––––, 265 P.3d 863 (Wash.2011). The United States Supreme Court has suggested that a police request for a forensic report is similar to a police int......
  • State v. Farnworth, 33673-5-III
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • June 1, 2017
    ...for cross-examination. Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 53-54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ; State v. Beadle , 173 Wash.2d 97, 107, 265 P.3d 863 (2011) ; 5C KARL B. TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: EVIDENCE LAW AND PRACTICE , § 1300.10, at 502 (6th ed. 2016). ¶32 Crawford v. Wa......
  • In re Hacheney
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 2012
    ...have noted that this test applies in the context of police interrogations. Davis, 547 U.S. at 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266;State v. Beadle, 173 Wash.2d 97, 108–110, 265 P.3d 863 (2011). The United States Supreme Court has suggested that a police request for a forensic report is similar to a police i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • § 12.8 Standard of Review Applied to Specific Rulings: Criminal Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Appellate Practice Deskbook (WSBA) Chapter 12 Standard of Review
    • Invalid date
    ...nonconstitutional harmless error analysis to erroneous admission of evidence under ER 609(a)); State v. Beadle, 173 Wn.2d 97, 120-21, 265 P.3d 863 (2011) (applying nonconstitutional harmless error analysis to erroneous admission under ER 401 and ER 403 of evidence of child witness's emotion......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Appellate Practice Deskbook (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...331 P.3d 50 (2014): 13.3(2)(a) State v. Bastas, 75 Wn. App. 882, 880 P.2d 1035 (1994): 23.7(2), 26.4(2) State v. Beadle, 173 Wn.2d 97, 265 P.3d 863 (2011): 12.8(5) State v. Beaver, 184 Wn. App. 235, 336 P.3d 654 (2014): 13.3, 13.3(2)(a) State v. Bebb, 44 Wn. App. 803, 723 P.2d 512 (1986), a......
  • The Admissibility of Cell Site Location Information in Washington Courts
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 36-03, March 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...181. See 5C Tegland, supranote 155, § 1300.2. 182. See State v. Pugh, 225 P.3d 892, 895-96 (Wash. 2009). 183. See State v. Beadle, 265 P.3d 863, 869 (Wash. 2011); State v. Ohlson, 168 P.3d 1273, 1277-79 (Wash. 2007). 184. State v. Reed, 278 P.3d 203, 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (drawing on pr......

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