State v. Harris
| Decision Date | 22 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 82009-5-I,82009-5-I |
| Citation | 498 P.3d 1002 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Quinton Marquette HARRIS, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Washington Appellate Project, 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 610, Seattle, WA, 98101, Gregory Charles Link, Washington Appellate Project, 1511 3rd Ave. Ste. 610, Seattle, WA, 98101-1683, Sara Sofia Taboada, Washington Appellate Project, 1511 3rd Ave. Ste. 610, Seattle, WA, 98101-3647, for Appellant.
Prosecuting Attorney Snohomish, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney, 3000 Rockefeller Ave. M/s 504, Everett, WA, 98201, Matthew R. Pittman, Snohomish Prosecuting Atty., 3000 Rockefeller Ave., Everett, WA, 98201-4046, for Respondent.
PUBLISHED OPINION
¶ 1 Quinton Harris appeals the trial court's judgment and sentence finding him guilty of three counts of violation of a no-contact order. Harris argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a prior assault. Harris also argues that he should be resentenced in light of our Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Blake, 197 Wash.2d 170, 183, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). We agree in respect to Harris's sentence and remand for resentencing under Blake. We otherwise affirm.
¶ 2 Harris and Jessica Bohannan have had a long romantic relationship. Bohannan has two young children, the youngest of which is the biological child of Harris. Due to prior domestic violence, there was a no-contact order prohibiting Harris from contacting Bohannan directly or indirectly, or coming within 300 feet of her residence. Bohannan was against the existence of the no-contact order.
¶ 3 On June 28, 2020, Harris went to Bohannan's Everett apartment. Bohannan's neighbor, Debbie Alinen, was present that day. At one point, Alinen heard through her and Bohannan's shared wall thumping, screams for help from Bohannan, and pleas from her children for the commotion to stop. Alinen called 911 and described the ongoing events to the operator.
¶ 4 Police arrived shortly afterward, including Officers John Coats and Bronwyn Wallace. Bohannan eventually allowed the officers inside, where they noticed what appeared to be fingerprints on her neck. A later body check revealed red marks on Bohannan's arms and body. Bohannan ultimately told Wallace that Harris assaulted her, but did not want the statement in writing or photos of her injuries.
¶ 5 Shortly thereafter, Officer Paul Stewart was in his patrol vehicle when he saw Harris on the roadside. Aware of Harris's involvement in the incident with Bohannan, Stewart turned his vehicle around; Harris began sprinting away. Stewart ultimately found and arrested Harris using the assistance of a tracking canine.
¶ 6 While incarcerated, Harris had repeated telephone and video-call contact with Bohannan. The jail system that monitors calls captured the communications. The State charged Harris with three counts of violation of a no-contact order—count I being a felony for the incident at Bohannan's apartment and counts II and III being misdemeanors for Harris's communication with Bohannan from jail. The jury found Harris guilty as charged. In determining Harris's offender score for sentencing, the court included in its calculations Harris's prior felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
¶ 7 Harris appeals.
¶ 8 Harris argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior assault of Bohannan. We disagree.
¶ 9 Prior to trial, the State notified the trial court through a motion in limine that, should Bohannan recant her statements to the police that Harris assaulted her, it intended to introduce Harris's prior conviction for assaulting Bohannan to assist the jury in evaluating her credibility. Harris moved to exclude this prior conviction. The trial court addressed the issue at length, ultimately determining that it could not rule on the motions at the moment if it did not know whether Bohannan would recant her statements to the police. The court did rule, however, that should there be evidence admitted ultimately recanting Bohannan's statements, it was "going to allow it to be shown that an assault occurred, but without going into the specifics of the assault."
¶ 10 Bohannan testified and recanted her statements to the police, stating that the confrontation with Harris was only verbal and that she did not tell the officers that he assaulted her. The State moved to cross-examine Bohannan consistent with the court's pretrial ruling that, if Bohannan recanted, the State could address the prior assault. The court ruled that the State could proceed and Bohannan testified that Harris had previously assaulted her.
¶ 11 This court reviews evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hudson, 150 Wash. App. 646, 652, 208 P.3d 1236 (2009). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds. State v. Lord, 161 Wash.2d 276, 283-84, 165 P.3d 1251 (2007) ).
¶ 12 Evidence Rule 404(b) prohibits a court from admitting "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts ... to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith." State v. Foxhoven, 161 Wash.2d 168, 175, 163 P.3d 786 (2007). Evidence of a defendant's prior assault of a victim is generally inadmissible if the defendant assaults the victim on a later occasion. The evidence may, however, become admissible for reasons such as "assist[ing] the jury in judging the credibility of a recanting victim." State v. Magers, 164 Wash.2d 174, 186, 189 P.3d 126 (2008).
¶ 13 Before admitting ER 404(b) evidence, a trial court "must (1) identify the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced, (2) determine whether the evidence is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged, and (3) weigh the probative value against its prejudicial effect." State v. Lough, 125 Wash.2d 847, 852, 889 P.2d 487 (1995). This analysis must be conducted on the record. State v. Smith, 106 Wash.2d 772, 776, 725 P.2d 951 (1986). If the evidence is admitted, a limiting instruction must be given to the jury. Lough, 125 Wash.2d at 864, 889 P.2d 487.
¶ 14 Here, the trial court supported its decision to admit Harris's prior assault, stating:
¶ 15 The trial court also addressed a limiting instruction with the parties on two occasions: once during proceedings and once prior to jury instructions and closing arguments. Harris ultimately agreed with the limiting instructions proposed and subsequently delivered by the court.
¶ 16 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Harris's prior assault of Bohannan. The court determined that the State could prove the assault by a preponderance of evidence. The court also identified the purpose of introducing the prior assault—to challenge Bohannan's credibility. Finally, the court properly balanced the probative versus prejudicial value of introducing the prior assault, and delivered a limiting instruction to the jury. These actions do not rise to an abuse of discretion.
¶ 17 Harris further contends that his prior assault was inadmissible absent expert testimony informing the jury how any prior assault rendered Bohannan less credible. Harris explains that such testimony is required to establish why his prior assault made Bohannan less credible, causing the jury confusion. Contrary to Harris's contention, no Washington court has adopted such a requirement, and we decline to do so.
¶ 18 This court first addressed expert testimony's role in assault-victim credibility in State v. Grant, 83 Wash. App. 98, 101, 920 P.2d 609 (1996). There, the victim made inconsistent statements regarding the assault prior to trial, but did not recant any statements during testimony. The court allowed testimony from the victim's therapist to "[entitle the jury] to evaluate her credibility with full knowledge of the dynamics of a relationship marked by domestic violence and the effect such a relationship has on the victim." Grant, 83 Wash. App. at 108, 920 P.2d 609. While the court determined that expert testimony may be helpful in evaluating victim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harris
...which included one point for a 2019 drug possession offense (Blake offense). Harris appealed. See State v. Harris, 20 Wn.App. 2d 153, 498 P.3d 1002 (2021). He raised two arguments on appeal: (1) that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence at Harris's trial, and (2) that he was ......