State v. Ray, No. 56989-4

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the CourtDORE; BRACHTENBACH, ANDERSEN, DURHAM and GUY, JJ., and CALLOW; DOLLIVER
Citation116 Wn.2d 531,806 P.2d 1220
Decision Date21 March 1991
Docket NumberNo. 56989-4
PartiesSTATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Fred L. RAY, Petitioner. En Banc

Page 531

116 Wn.2d 531
806 P.2d 1220
STATE of Washington, Respondent,
v.
Fred L. RAY, Petitioner.
No. 56989-4.
Supreme Court of Washington,
En Banc.
March 21, 1991.

[806 P.2d 1222] Segelbaum & Peale,

Page 532

Walter O. Peale, Edmonds, for petitioner.

Seth R. Dawson, Snohomish County Prosecutor, S. Aaron Fine, Deputy, Everett, for respondent.

DORE, Chief Justice.

Ray appeals his conviction of first degree incest because he alleges that the trial court erroneously suppressed the testimony of his defense witness, Bogart. We agree and reverse and remand for a new trial.

FACTS

On March 19, 1987, John Miller called the police and reported that the previous evening he saw his father, defendant Ray, having anal intercourse with Miller's sister, D., in the bathroom. Miller later described to the police in a

Page 533

written statement what he saw on the evening of March 18, and he told the police officer that he saw Ray fondle D. on other occasions.

When the police interviewed D., she denied that the incest occurred and suggested that Miller called the police because he was angry with Ray. D. later called the police, however, reported that the incest did occur, and agreed to submit a written statement.

D. told police that she moved into her father's home in January 1987. On March 18, D. went to the beach and when she returned home, went into the bathroom and took a shower. D. had just finished showering, and was brushing her teeth, when Ray came in. D. believed Ray wanted to shave, and let him into the room. Ray stood on one side of the sink and D. stood on the other. As D. put the cap on the toothpaste, her towel slipped off and Ray commented that D. "looked good" nude. When D. bent over to pick up the towel, Ray reached across and tried to place his finger in her rectum. D. stood up, put the towel around her and left the bathroom. As D. left the bathroom, she almost ran into Miller, who was standing outside the door.

Police interviewed Ray on April 1. Ray stated that on March 18, he got home from work, spoke with Miller about Miller's getting a job, then left for a 4 p.m. appointment. Ray returned from his appointment at approximately 5:30 p.m. and retired for the night before 10 p.m.

The State charged Ray with one count of incest in the first degree. Ray pleaded not guilty. In June 1987, Ray filed an omnibus application which stated that Ray might call Janet Bogart as a witness at trial. The police reports in the record state that: as of April 1, Bogart had been staying at Ray's house for approximately 2 weeks; she heard that Miller got mad at Ray and "reported something to the police to get even"; she heard that D. moved into Ray's home to spend time with him; and that Ray had not touched his other children except to spank them. Clerk's Papers, at 37.

Page 534

In mid-July, D. and Miller separately called the prosecutor, informed him that they were living with their father, and asked that he drop the charges against Ray. On July 22, Miller and D., together, again called the prosecutor. They asked that the prosecutor drop the charges against Ray and that the prosecutor speak with Ray because he "refused to believe that [D.] and ... Miller ... tried to get the charges dropped. [D.] stated that ... [Ray] was presently in the room ... listening to ... the conversation." Clerk's Papers, at 105-06. At trial, the State moved to exclude evidence of D.'s convictions for arson and for theft. Ray argued that the theft conviction was admissible to impeach D., because it went to D.'s credibility and honesty. The court concluded that theft was not a crime involving dishonesty, under ER 609(a)(2), and excluded evidence of D.'s theft conviction.

Ray moved to exclude evidence of prior incidents of sexual contact between himself and D. He alleged that the evidence was not relevant or admissible "under [ER] 402 ... [or] 404(b)"; the prior acts were too [806 P.2d 1223] remote in time from the incest alleged in 1987; and that there was no evidence of a common scheme or plan. Report of Proceedings, at 65. The court admitted the evidence of prior contact because it showed Ray's lustful disposition toward D.

On direct examination, Miller testified that he saw Ray have intercourse with D. On cross examination, Miller denied that he saw D. and Ray have intercourse; stated he could not see much of the bathroom from where he was standing; and testified that he called the police because he was upset with Ray. On redirect, Miller stated that he saw Ray "humping" D. and that the written statement he gave the police was true. Miller testified that he lied during cross examination, to protect his father. Report of Proceedings, at 36-39 (Sept. 8, 1987). On recross, Miller reaffirmed that he saw D. and Ray have intercourse.

D. testified that she lived with Ray until she was 8 years old. From age 8 to 17 years, D. lived with foster or adopted parents, and she and her brothers visited Ray. In January

Page 535

1987, D. moved into Ray's home. During January and February, D. slept on Ray's couch. Some mornings, as Ray left for work, he rubbed D.'s breasts or buttocks. D. did not complain to anyone of Ray's behavior.

D. testified that on March 18, Ray entered the bathroom and had anal intercourse with her, as related in her statement to the police. D. acknowledged that she "went back and forth" about what occurred on March 18, but stated that she initially denied the incest because she was embarrassed and nervous. Report of Proceedings, at 94, 102, 110, 114, 120, 127 (Sept. 8, 1987). D. testified that she asked the prosecutor to drop the charges against Ray because she was scared.

D. recalled three earlier incidents of sexual contact with Ray. Before D. went into foster care, Ray picked her up and touched her "up top". Report of Proceedings, at 95-96. On another occasion, Ray took D. and her brothers to the movies. He sent the boys out to buy a snack, then pulled D. onto his lap and put his hand under her shirt. Finally, when D. was 9 or 10, and in foster care, she and her siblings visited Ray on weekends. When they visited, Ray gave each of the other children a treat, but usually hid D.'s treat in his bedroom, then followed her upstairs when she went to find it. Once, Ray sat on the bed next to D. and he touched her "on top" and "real quick" on her vagina. Report of Proceedings, at 100 (Sept. 8, 1987).

At the close of the State's case, the prosecutor interviewed Janet Bogart. The prosecutor reported to the court:

The defense provided me with a summary of their proposed witnesses' testimony ... It recites Janet Bogart will testify she never saw Fred make any sexual advances or contact with [D.] and that she had a sexual relationship with Ray at the time he was supposed to have had contact with [D.].

I've just interviewed Bogart and she's now telling me that she was there that night, that she was a witness to all the events of that night, and is laying out in great detail what she said happened that night.

. . . . .

... [T]hat was never revealed to me. Therefore, I could not examine my witnesses as to who else was in the house....

Page 536

I'm asking that she not be allowed to testify ... I'm ... very surprised after my case is ... complete, I find out ... there's somebody who's going to be an alibi witness, basically.

... I'm surprised because the summary which I was given ... doesn't mention anything about her being there that night or witnessing ... the incident in the bathroom. The police reports recite she was living there, but not that she was home the night this happened ... [S]he ... has been elevated from living there to being an eyewitness ...

Report of Proceedings, at 138, 140 (Sept. 8, 1987).

Defense counsel argued that Bogart's name was in the police reports, the prosecutor had the name and address, and that [806 P.2d 1224] he could have spoken with her before the trial.

The court "assumed" Bogart would testify that she was in the house at the time "observing [D.] and [Ray] ... in the bathroom" and that she " '[W]as there and observed the incident and ... the sexual contact did not take place.' " Report of Proceedings, at 141, 143 (Sept. 8, 1987). The court found, however, that defendant's summary omitted crucial information, in violation of CrR 4.7, which governs discovery, and it suppressed Bogart's testimony.

Ray, the only defense witness, testified that on March 18, he finished work, paid some bills downtown, and got home at approximately 5:30 p.m. He, Bogart, Miller, and D. went to the beach together. When they returned from the beach, Ray made his lunch then sat in the living room with Miller, while D. showered. Bogart watched television in another room. Ray testified that he entered the bathroom after D. came out, that he and D. were never in the bathroom together, that he never saw D. nude, and that he retired soon after shaving. Ray did not recall any instances of sexual contact with D. and he denied leaving "treats" for D. in his bedroom.

The jury convicted Ray of first degree incest. Ray filed a "Motion for Arrest of Judgment and New Trial" in which he alleged that the trial court erroneously suppressed Bogart's testimony and that the suppression denied him a fair trial. Ray also argued that trial counsel's failure to

Page 537

preserve Bogart's testimony denied him effective assistance of counsel.

Ray submitted the affidavit of Janet Bogart with his motion for new trial. In her affidavit, Bogart stated that she was in Ray's house and she remembered the evening of March 18. Bogart recalled that on March 18, she was in the living room playing cards and stated that she was aware, at all times, of where Ray and D. were. Bogart reported that D. and Ray were never in the bathroom together and that Ray entered the bathroom only after D. came out. Bogart stated that D. admitted that she lied to the police about the alleged incest and that she reported the incest to "get back at" Ray and to "show...

To continue reading

Request your trial
301 practice notes
  • State v. Ortuno-Perez, No. 72849-1-l
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • November 28, 2016
    ...evidence so that the court can assess its admissibility; and it creates a record adequate for review.State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531, 538, 806 P.2d 1220 (1991). An offer of proof is unnecessary only when "the substance of the excluded evidence is apparent from the record." Ray, 116 Wash.2d at......
  • State v. Copeland, No. 62417-8
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 19, 1996
    ...520, 548, 782 P.2d 1013, 787 P.2d 906, 80 A.L.R.4th 989 (1989), approved on ER 609 issue by State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531, 544-45, 806 P.2d 1220 (1991). See also Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (rejecting federal case law interpreting Fed.R.Civ.P. We decline ......
  • State v. Jimenez–Macias, No. 41403–1–II.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • October 16, 2012
    ...only if there is a reasonable probability that error materially affected the trial's outcome. State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531, 546, 806 P.2d 1220 (1991). See our discussion under Macias's challenge for ineffective assistance of...
  • State v. Gresham, Nos. 84148–9
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • January 5, 2012
    ...victim is admissible in order to show the defendant's lustful disposition toward that victim. E.g., State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531, 547, 806 P.2d 1220 (1991); State v. Camarillo, 115 Wash.2d 60, 70, 794 P.2d 850 (1990). The evidence is admitted to show the lustful disposition of the defendan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
301 cases
  • State v. Ortuno-Perez, No. 72849-1-l
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • November 28, 2016
    ...evidence so that the court can assess its admissibility; and it creates a record adequate for review.State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531, 538, 806 P.2d 1220 (1991). An offer of proof is unnecessary only when "the substance of the excluded evidence is apparent from the record." Ray, 116 Wash.2d at......
  • State v. Copeland, No. 62417-8
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 19, 1996
    ...520, 548, 782 P.2d 1013, 787 P.2d 906, 80 A.L.R.4th 989 (1989), approved on ER 609 issue by State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531, 544-45, 806 P.2d 1220 (1991). See also Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249, 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (rejecting federal case law interpreting Fed.R.Civ.P. We decline ......
  • State v. Jimenez–Macias, No. 41403–1–II.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • October 16, 2012
    ...only if there is a reasonable probability that error materially affected the trial's outcome. State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531, 546, 806 P.2d 1220 (1991). See our discussion under Macias's challenge for ineffective assistance of...
  • State v. Gresham, Nos. 84148–9
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • January 5, 2012
    ...victim is admissible in order to show the defendant's lustful disposition toward that victim. E.g., State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531, 547, 806 P.2d 1220 (1991); State v. Camarillo, 115 Wash.2d 60, 70, 794 P.2d 850 (1990). The evidence is admitted to show the lustful disposition of the defendan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT