State v. Huerta
| Decision Date | 02 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 31501-1-III,31501-1-III |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. ARTURO LUNA HUERTA, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
FEARING, J. — Arturo Huerta assigns numerous errors to his trial on charges for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and involving a minor in drag dealing. The assignments of error challenge evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of evidence, closed hearings, and prosecutorial misconduct. We agree with only one assignment error. We rale that the trial court should have excluded as hearsay testimony of a law enforcement detective comparing $100 bills given to a confidential informant with currency recovered after the drag buy, when the State presented neither the banknotes nor the photocopies. We nonetheless hold the error to be harmless. We affirm Huerta's convictions on both charges.
A sting operation gave rise to this prosecution of appellant Arturo Huerta. On May 30, 2012, Yakima Police Detective Erik Horbatko contacted a confidential informant and requested that the informant order the purchase of one ounce of methamphetamine and one pound of marijuana from Huerta. We do not know why police targeted Huerta. Horbatko wished the undercover buy to occur at the parking lot of a ubiquitous Walmart store in west Yakima. The confidential informant followed Ilorbatko's instructions.
On May 31, 2012, Yakima Detectives Erik Horbatko and Rafael Sanchez met with the confidential informant. I lorbatko photocopied twelve $100 bills, after which he handed the bills to the informant for purchase of the drugs. Horbatko instructed the informant to drive to the Walmart store, park in the store's parking lot, call Arturo Huerta, and ask Huerta to come to the lot. Horbatko and Sanchez followed the informant into the northwest corner of the Walmart parking lot in order to observe the purchase. Drug task force members surrounded the perimeter of the parking lot.
After an hour, Detective Erik Horbatko spied a tan Honda Accord enter the Walmart parking lot and park a few rows from the confidential informant's car. Arturo Huerta and a woman companion exited the Accord, and Horbatko saw Huerta holding a red cup in his hand. The activity of the companion is relevant to charges against Huerta for involving a minor in a drug purchase. Horbatko spoke with the informant on the phone and told him to drive closer to Huerta and his companion. The informant complied, and Huerta approached the informant's car. Huerta's female companionwalked about one hundred fifty feet from him and stood near a shopping cart kiosk, planting strip, or a light post in the parking lot. According to Erik Horbatko, the female companion continued to survey the lot.
Arturo Huerta entered the passenger seat of the confidential informant's car. After one or two minutes, Huerta, without the red cup, exited the informant's vehicle. Detective Erik Horbatko watched Huerta and his female companion return to the Honda Accord, enter the Accord, and sit for thirty seconds. The informant drove from the parking lot, and Horbatko followed the informant. Huerta drove the Accord from the lot as undercover task force members trailed him.
Detective Erik Horbatko met the confidential informant at a parking strip near the Walmart store. The informant handed Horbatko a red McDonald's french fries cup. Horbatko removed three separate parcels of a white crystal substance and a $100 bill from the cup. Washington State Patrol Forensic Scientist Andrea Ricci later ascertained one of the parcels contained 13.8 grams of methamphetamine. Detective Horbatko compared the retained bill with the photocopy previously taken of the twelve bills. The $100 bill was one of the twelve bills that Horbatko handed the confidential informant before the parking lot purchase.
At the request of undercover drug task force members, Yakima police officers detained the Honda Accord and arrested Arturo Huerta and his companion. At the Yakima Police Department, law enforcement identified the companion as sixteen-year-old Suzanna Rodriguez. Huerta and Rodriguez's families are close, and Rodriguez often socialized with Huerta's girlfriend and daughters.
At the police department, officers searched Arturo Huerta's person and found neither drugs nor money. A female police officer took Suzanna Rodriguez into a secluded room to conduct a frisk, but before the officer began the search, Rodriguez reached into her bra and removed a wad of money. The wad contained eleven $100 bills. Detective Erik Horbatko compared the eleven bills to the photocopy he ran earlier, and the detective confirmed the bills surrendered by Rodriguez matched bills given the informant to purchase drugs from Huerta.
After obtaining a warrant, Detectives Erik Horbatko and Rafael Sanchez searched the tan Honda Accord. On the floor of the passenger side front seat, the detectives found a McDonald's food bag with a ball of aluminum foil at the bottom of the bag. Inside the aluminum lay two small plastic bags of a crystal substance. A state chemist determined one of the bags contained 3.3 grams of methamphetamine. In the back seat of the Accord, the detectives retrieved another food bag containing a crystal shard and a smaller bag with the crystal substance. A state scientist concluded that the loose crystal substance consisted of 1.7 grams of methamphetamine.
The State of Washington charged Arturo Huerta with one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. The State later amended its information toadditionally charge Huerta with one count of involving a minor in drug dealing.
Before trial, Arturo Huerta moved for the disclosure of the identity of the State's confidential informant. He argued that disclosure was essential to a fair determination of his prosecution since the informant was a percipient witness to the transaction that gave rise to the criminal charges. The State opposed the motion by arguing that the confidential informant's testimony was not relevant to the charges. The State also reported that Detective Erik Horbatko could not locate the confidential informant and believed he left Washington State.
Arturo Huerta next filed a pretrial motion to dismiss. Huerta argued that the State's refusal to produce the confidential informant warranted dismissal and that the State's inability to locate the informant amounted to governmental misconduct under CrR 8.3(b). Huerta also moved in limine to exclude testimony regarding a possible romantic relationship between Huerta and Suzanna Rodriguez. He further asked for exclusion of evidence of an incident in which Rodriguez called out "I love you" to Huerta while the duo rested in jail. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 26.
The trial court entertained Arturo Huerta's motion to compel disclosure, motion to dismiss, and motions in limine at the beginning of trial. During the hearing on the motion to compel disclosure of the confidential informant's identity, Huerta and the State agreed to allow Huerta's counsel to interview the informant, without obtaining the informant's identity, and record the interview. Presumably the confidential informant reappeared,assuming he ever disappeared. Huerta's attorney interviewed the confidential informant that afternoon.
During the morning following the previous afternoon's interview of the informant, Arturo Huerta's counsel informed the trial court that the State disallowed questions about the informant's relationship to Huerta or the vehicle driven by the informant the day of the parking lot rendezvous. Huerta renewed his motion to dismiss, although he limited the motion to dismissal of the charge of involving a minor in drug dealing. He contended the informant could provide testimony concerning whether Suzanna Rodriguez acted as a decoy or sentinel. He argued that the State's interference during the interview prevented him from preparing an adequate defense. Huerta provided the State and the trial court with copies of the recording of his attorney's attempted interview. The trial court and counsel discussed whether the court should interview the confidential informant in camera. The trial court never ruled that it would interview the informant, nor does the record confirm any interview. The trial court stated that it would listen to the recording of the defense's interview with the confidential informant. The court did not mention when it would listen to the recording. Shortly thereafter the trial court took a noon recess.
After the lunch recess, Arturo Huerta informed the trial court that he no longer wished to know the confidential informant's identity. The trial court did not indicate whether it listened in camera, during the noon recess, to the recording of defensecounsel's interview with the informant. The trial court next addressed Huerta's motions in limine. The State agreed not to offer Suzanna Rodriguez's purported "I love you" statement to Huerta unless the defense opened the door to its relevance. The prosecutor remarked:
As to, I love you, it's not relevant unless for whatever reason the [d]efendant gets up and says something that, you know, I don't know this person, or something that would make it relevant and then we can discuss it at that time.
Report of Proceedings (RP) at 96. Thus, the trial court rendered no ruling on the motion to preclude testimony of the comment.
Jury selection proceeded the following day and ended at 4:32 p.m. The time of ending is important to a public trial challenge by Arturo Huerta.
During trial, Detective Erik Horbatko testified for the prosecution. During his testimony, Horbatko uttered comments to which Arturo Huerta objected as irrelevant and prejudicial:
RP ...
To continue reading
Request your trial