State v. Danielson
| Decision Date | 02 April 1965 |
| Citation | 681 P.2d 260,37 Wn.App. 469 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Rick K. DANIELSON, b.d |
Washington Appellate Defender Assoc., Raymond H. Thoenig, Seattle (court-appointed), for appellant.
Norman K. Maleng, King County Pros. Atty., E.K. Inkley, Scott McKay, Deputy Pros. Attys., Juvenile Division, Seattle, for respondent.
Defendant, Rick K. Danielson, appeals from a juvenile court disposition order entered after a finding of guilt on the charge of felony flight contrary to RCW 46.61.024. We affirm.
The automobile chase began when the suspect vehicle failed to respond to a police officer's hand signal to stop. Subsequently, two police officers on motorcycles pursued the car over a distance of 3 miles at very high speeds. The chase ended when the car became stuck in a large mud puddle. The driver and passenger emerged from the car and ran in opposite directions. The police remained at the scene and arranged for impoundment of the vehicle. A person believed to be the passenger was apprehended nearby.
One of the officers involved in the chase, Officer Nordquist, testified that he was told by the passenger's father that he would have the driver call the officer. Officer Nordquist testified that he subsequently received a call from a person identifying himself as Rick Danielson. Defendant objected to the officer's testimony relating the substance of the telephone conversation and assigns error to its admission.
Defendant argues that in order for the statements made to the officer to be admitted as admissions of the defendant under ER 801(d)(2), the State must first prove that the defendant was the person speaking to the officer on the telephone. ER 901(a).
Initially, we reject the defendant's contention that the State may not establish the identity of the caller by reference to the same hearsay sought to be introduced as substantive evidence. Because determination of the identity of the caller was a preliminary question, and thus a matter of conditional relevance governed by ER 104(b), see comment to ER 901, the rules of evidence do not apply. ER 104(a); ER 1101(c)(1). Thus there is no hearsay bar to the use of Officer Nordquist's testimony for the purpose of establishing identity. The remaining question is whether this evidence was in fact properly authenticated.
The declarant's message during the telephone conversation may itself provide evidence of identification and authentication. State v. Deaver, 6 Wash.App. 216, 219, 491 P.2d 1363 (1971). Evidence Rule 901(b) gives illustrations of authentication, which may include distinctive characteristics in form or content, ER 901(b)(4), and self-authentication in telephone conversations, ER 901(b)(6). The identification requirement has been met if sufficient proof is introduced to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find in favor of authentication or identification. See comment to ER 901; 5A K. Tegland, Wash.Prac., Evidence Law & Practice, § 452 (2d ed. 1982). The identity of a party making a telephone call may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. State v. Elie, 4 Wash.App. 352, 353, 481 P.2d 464 (1971).
The evidence tending to establish that it was the defendant who placed the call to Officer Nordquist may be summarized:
1. The caller identified himself as the defendant;
2. The birth date given by the caller matched that of the defendant and was verified through Department of Licensing records and an existing field interview record;
3. The address given by the caller matched the address for the defendant listed on the vehicle impound form;
4. The caller stated that he was calling in response to a request by the passenger's father, who was named; and
5. The caller stated that he did not stop because he had an outstanding warrant and did not want to go to jail. Officer Nordquist verified that there was indeed an outstanding warrant for the defendant.
In addition to identifying himself as the defendant, the caller disclosed knowledge of numerous facts of a personal nature, all consistent with the defendant's identity. This was sufficient proof of identification.
Telephone communications, once authenticated, may be shown in the same manner and with like effect as face-to-face conversations between individuals. State v. Deaver, supra, 6 Wash.App. at 219, 491 P.2d 1363. The statements made to Officer Nordquist were properly admitted as admissions. ER 801(d)(2)(i); see 5A K. Tegland, supra §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...it introduces sufficient proof to permit a reasonable juror to find in favor of authenticity or identification. State v. Danielson, 37 Wash.App. 469, 471, 681 P.2d 260 (1984). "Rule 901 does not limit the type of evidence allowed to authenticate a document. It merely requires some evidence ......
-
State v. Bradford
...proof is introduced to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find in favor of authentication or identification.” State v. Danielson, 37 Wash.App. 469, 471, 681 P.2d 260 (1984). Furthermore, the trial court is not bound by the rules of evidence when making a determination as to authenticity. ......
-
State v. Owens
...is sufficient proof to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find in favor of authentication or identification. State v. Danielson, 37 Wn. App. 469, 471, 681 P.2d 260 (1984). Owens first argues that the trial court erred by admitting testimony from Detective Bachelder regarding a conversatio......
-
State v. Rienhardt
...Farmers Ins. Co., 20 Ariz.App. 38, 509 P.2d 1075 (1973); State v. Philips, 108 Wash.2d 627, 741 P.2d 24 (1987); State v. Danielson, 37 Wash.App. 469, 681 P.2d 260 (1984); State v. Elie, 4 Wash.App. 352, 481 P.2d 464 (1971). All of these cases stand for the general proposition that the ident......
-
"letters I've Written, Never Meaning to Send ...": Conditional Relevance, Evidence Rule 104(b), and Mark Edwards' Curious Murder Trial
...basis for identifying the voice' has been shown, questions of weight and credibility are for the jury")); see also State v. Danielson, 681 P.2d 260, 261 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984) (holding the identification requirement is "met if sufficient proof is introduced to permit a reasonable trier of fa......