State v. Bond
| Decision Date | 06 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 19666-9-I,19666-9-I |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. James Kenneth BOND, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Neil M. Fox, Appellate Defender, Seattle, for appellant James Kenneth bond.
Saul Gamoran, Donna L. Wise, King County Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent State.
The defendant, James Kenneth Bond, appeals his conviction for robbery in the second degree. We affirm.
On May 17, 1986, at about 1 a.m., Daniel Rozek was working at a Domino's pizza store in Federal Way, when a tall, thin male in his early twenties entered the store and asked to use the restroom. This man was Robert Keith Langston. After Rozek told him that the store did not have a restroom for public use, Langston walked behind the counter and told Rozek to open the till. Langston was carrying what appeared to be a gun. Rozek could see a barrel with tape around it. Rozek told him that he did not have the keys to the till and that he would have to go to the office. The two men went to the office, got the key and returned to the till. Rozek opened it and took out the contents, a $5 bill and some change, and put it in a bag Langston was holding. Langston then looked in the store safe and in some other money bags, but found no other cash. Langston then left the store.
John Labbe, a Domino's employee, was sitting in his car outside the store taking a break at the time of the robbery. He testified that he saw two men enter a light-colored Pinto hatchback. Both men appeared to Labbe to be in their early twenties.
Langston testified that on May 16, he contacted Bond over the latter's beeper pager and arranged to meet him later that evening. Langston said he and Bond talked about getting drugs or money. Bond and his girl friend, Melanie Quine, picked up Langston at around 11 p.m. Quine was driving, and Bond and Langston discussed getting money. Langston testified that he proposed to Bond that they rob a Little Caesar's pizza store. Langston said the plan was for him to go inside the store and hold it up, while Bond was to stand outside as a lookout and to indicate if anyone was coming. Langston would use a device that he made from coat hangers that looked like a gun. Langston, Bond and Quine went to a Little Caesar's, but Langston decided that there were too many people around to rob the store, so he, Bond and Quine drove off.
Langston said that eventually they spotted the Domino's pizza store. Langston told Bond to stand outside to watch for people and to indicate if anyone drove up, while Langston went inside to get money. Langston testified that he never directly told Bond exactly how he would get the money, but because they had discussed the plan earlier with regard to Little Caesar's, he assumed Bond knew what was happening. After Langston robbed Domino's, he and Bond walked back to the car where Quine was waiting. They drove to Bond's house, where Bond changed clothes, and then drove off again. A few minutes later, a police car pulled their car over and arrested them. Langston said that prior to being pulled over, Bond and he discussed telling the police that Langston was just a hitchhiker.
Quine testified that on the evening of May 16, she and Bond went to see a movie and then drove around in her car while Bond tried to make arrangements to meet his friend. Eventually, they picked up Langston and drove around with him for a while. Bond and Langston talked between themselves a number of times, without letting Quine know what they were talking about. Quine drove the two men to Little Caesar's and then to a parking lot near Domino's. The two men left her alone in the car for a while and then returned. Quine said they stopped briefly at Bond's house, where Bond changed clothes and a few minutes later, the police pulled the car over and arrested them.
Quine did not know at first why they were being arrested, although she later learned that it was on suspicion of robbery. Quine spent the night in jail and was released the next day. The following evening, Bond called Quine. Quine asked Bond why he robbed Domino's. Bond responded that he needed the money to pay off debts and that Langston had told him he would get $200-$400.
King County Police Officer Rudy Hasenwinkle testified that he interviewed Bond at the police station and that Bond admitted to being a "lookout" for Langston while Langston robbed Domino's. Hasenwinkle said that Bond wanted to make a deal with him, but Hasenwinkle refused.
County Police Detective Robert Stockham testified that a few days after Bond spoke with Hasenwinkle, he had a conversation with Bond in which Bond told Stockham that when he was arrested he was drunk, that he made everything up, and that he had told Hasenwinkle he was just a lookout because Hasenwinkle told him that he would not go to jail if he gave information about Langston. Bond told Stockham that the reason that he stopped at a variety of places before the robbery was to buy drugs and that he did not know about a robbery until after Langston had committed it.
Bond testified that he did not know that Langston was going to rob Domino's when Langston went inside. Rather, Bond thought Langston was going inside to use the restroom. Bond waited outside because he was supposed to meet a contact at the nearby Jack In the Box to buy some marijuana. Bond admitted going by Little Caesar's earlier because Langston said he knew someone there who could sell them some marijuana. Bond testified that Langston admitted to Bond during the course of the evening that he had committed some other robberies. Bond stated that he did not find out from Langston that Langston robbed Domino's until after Bond had changed his clothes.
Bond admitted telling Officer Hasenwinkle that he was a "lookout", but he thought a lookout was someone looking out for someone else and that he was looking out for his drug connection--he was not a lookout for a robbery. He also denied telling Quine that he had been involved in a robbery--he just had apologized to her for involving her in the incident.
The State charged Langston and Bond with one count of robbery in the second degree. Langston entered a plea of guilty.
Prior to trial, Bond made a motion in limine to exclude evidence of his March 1986 conviction for burglary in the second degree. The court inquired of the prosecutor how old the felony was and ruled that the evidence would be admissible for impeachment purposes only. The court indicated that "the record can be deemed an in limine ruling at this time that the prior felony in March of 1986 may be used for impeaching purposes in the event the defendant testifies."
The prosecutor indicated that he thought the court should balance the Alexis 1 factors on the record, which the court indicated could be done after jury selection.
During trial, the prosecutor indicated that it would be acceptable if Bond introduced evidence of the conviction on direct examination, rather than waiting for him to use it in impeachment, and further indicated that it would be acceptable if the evidence came out only as a prior felony conviction, without specifying of the type of felony.
When asked by defense counsel to address the record as to how a prior burglary conviction had any bearing on credibility, the court ruled as follows:
Well, I suggest that the proximity of the felony that is being addressed now, to this event, is such that in view of the rules is admissible for the limited purpose of impeaching on the credibility issue, and for that purpose only.
During both direct examination and cross examination, Bond testified that he had been convicted of a felony.
On October 2, 1986, Bond was found guilty of robbery in the second degree. This appeal timely followed.
Bond argues that the trial court erred by failing to balance the relevant factors on the record, and that if this court engages in such balancing, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Russell
...Mutchler, 53 Wash.App. 898, 903, 771 P.2d 1168 (ER 404(b)), review denied, 113 Wash.2d 1002, 777 P.2d 1050 (1989); State v. Bond, 52 Wash.App. 326, 333, 759 P.2d 1220 (1988) (ER 609(a)(1)); State v. Gogolin, 45 Wash.App. 640, 645-46, 727 P.2d 683 (1986) (ER 404(b)); State v. Mahmood, 45 Was......
-
State v. Hewson
...on the record is harmless if, "from the record as a whole, " this court can determine the ER 609 ruling was correct. State v. Bond, 52 Wn.App. 326, 333, 759 P.2d 1220 (1988). But even an erroneous ER 609 ruling is harmless "'unless, within reasonable probabilities, had the error not occurre......
-
State v. Hewson
...on the record is harmless if, "from the record as a whole," this court can determine the ER 609 ruling was correct. State v. Bond, 52 Wn. App. 326, 333, 759 P.2d 1220 (1988). But even an erroneous ER 609 ruling is harmless '"unless, within reasonable probabilities, had the error not occurre......
-
State v. Roche
...trial court's, but only when the result was obvious had the trial court engaged in a proper analysis. See, e.g., State v. Bond, 52 Wash.App. 326, 333, 759 P.2d 1220 (1988). In those cases, we independently balanced the Alexis factors for efficiency purposes. 6 See, e.g., Bond, at 333-334, 7......