State v. Braxton, 5149-I
| Decision Date | 19 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 5149-I,5149-I |
| Citation | 20 Wn.App. 489,580 P.2d 1116 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Clarence Lee BRAXTON, Appellant, Maurice Lee Glenn, Defendant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Associated Counsel for the Accused, Peter Moote, Seattle, for appellant.
Christopher T. Bayley, King County Pros. Atty., Elsa R. Durham, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
Clarence Lee Braxton and Maurice Lee Glenn were tried by a jury and found guilty of robbery and second degree rape of a young woman. Braxton was subsequently alleged to be a habitual criminal and was so adjudged by the trial court. He appeals the judgment and sentence asserting that the trial court violated his right to a fair trial by (1) limiting access to the complaining witness' Department of Social and Health Services mental health file, (2) refusing to order a psychiatric examination of the complaining witness, (3) denying a motion for a continuance for the purpose of evaluating information on the complaining witness' mental and emotional condition, (4) restricting reference to the complaining witness' mental problems in the opening statement of defense counsel, (5) permitting the prosecuting attorney to cross-examine the codefendant regarding his offer to repay the complaining witness, and (6) admitting records of prior convictions that do not include statutory citations to prove habitual criminal status. The remaining assignments of error are not supported by authority nor do they appear to be well taken. State v. Young, 89 Wash.2d 613, 574 P.2d 1171 (1978).
The scope of discovery, Seattle v. Apodaca, 18 Wash.App. 802, 572 P.2d 732 (1977), the admission of expert opinion evidence, State v. Murdock, 18 Wash.App. 294, 567 P.2d 267 (1977), the granting of a continuance, Seattle v. Apodaca, supra, the propriety of an opening statement, State v. Kroll,87 Wash.2d 829, 558 P.2d 173 (1976), and the latitude and extent of cross-examination, State v. Boyer, 19 Wash.App. 338, 576 P.2d 902 (1978), are all matters within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion. We find no such abuse.
Defense counsel moved for discovery of the complaining witness' mental health records alleging that she had a history of suffering from "sexual delusions" which affected her credibility as a witness. Recognizing that unbridled disclosure of the complaining witness' past mental and emotional problems would cause her unnecessary embarrassment, defense counsel proposed that the trial court examine the records in camera and disclose only that information which was relevant to the defense. See CrR 4.7(e). This the trial court did. Braxton cannot now complain that the procedure was improper. See Rao v. Auburn General Hospital, 19 Wash.App. 124, 573 P.2d 834 (1978).
The credibility of the complaining witness and the weight to be afforded her testimony are matters for the jury's determination. State v. Cox, 17 Wash.App. 896, 566 P.2d 935 (1977). She testified that she voluntarily accompanied Braxton and Glenn to Glenn's house where she expected to meet a friend. When she discovered that the friend was not there, she asked to be taken home. They refused, raped her, and took money and bus tickets from her purse. As soon as she had an opportunity, she escaped by jumping out the bathroom window and running to a neighbor's house. The neighbors testified that the complaining witness was crying when she burst into their house and told them that two men were trying to kill her. She was wide-eyed and frightened; her blouse was torn; her pants' zipper was undone; she had no underclothes, and she was carrying her shoes. Glenn followed her, pounded on the door, and yelled, "Give me back my woman." The neighbors locked the door and called the police. A doctor who performed a pelvic examination of the complaining witness later that afternoon testified that she found positive evidence of seminal fluid. Glenn testified that he saw Braxton with his pants down on top of the complaining witness who was naked, and that she was struggling and screaming. A psychiatric examination of the complaining witness was neither required nor warranted under the facts of this case. Ballard v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 64 Cal.2d 159, 175-76, 49 Cal.Rptr. 302, 313, 410 P.2d 838, 849 (1966), the authority upon which Braxton chiefly relies, appears to be in complete accord:
We submit . . . that a general rule requiring a psychiatric examination of complaining witnesses in every sex case or, as an alternative, in any such case that rests upon the uncorroborated testimony of the complaining witness would, in many instances, not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Frederick
...30 Wash.App. 324, 328, 634 P.2d 887 (1981); State v. Castillo, 23 Wash.App. 519, 521-22, 596 P.2d 312 (1979); State v. Braxton, 20 Wash.App. 489, 493, 580 P.2d 1116 (1978). This court, on the other hand, has described the proper test, albeit in dictum, as whether the prior convictions "cons......
-
State v. Carlson
...up an error at trial and then complain of it on appeal. State v. Pam, 101 Wash.2d 507, 511, 680 P.2d 762 (1984); State v. Braxton, 20 Wash.App. 489, 493, 580 P.2d 1116 (1978), review denied, 91 Wash.2d 1018 Juror Misconduct. Next Carlson contends that the trial court should have granted a n......
-
Ottis v. Stevenson-Carson School Dist. No. 303
...was a matter for the discretion of the court, State v. Kroll, 87 Wash.2d 829, 835, 558 P.2d 173 (1976); State v. Braxton, 20 Wash.App. 489, 491, 580 P.2d 1116 (1978), and nothing before us shows that it was Affirmed. WORSWICK, C.J., and ALEXANDER, J., concur. 1 According to the record, plai......
-
State v. Filson
...v. Clasey, 252 Or. 22, 446 P.2d 116, 117 (1968); State v. Klueber, 81 S.D. 223, 132 N.W.2d 847, 850 (1965); State v. Braxton, 20 Wash.App. 489, 580 P.2d 1116, 1118-19 (1978). There is nothing in the record showing a compelling need for a psychological examination. 3 We do not have the facts......
-
Admitting mental health evidence to impeach the credibility of a sexual assault complainant.
...(en banc); State v. Ballard, 714 S.W.2d 284, 287 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986) (same), aff'd, 855 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Braxton, 580 P.2d 1116, 1118-19 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978) (32) See, e.g., Judith Greenberg, Note, Compulsory Psychological Examination in Sexual Offense Cases: Invasion ......