State v. Sanchez-Rodriguez

• Decision Date: 11 March 2013
• Docket Number: No. 67844-2-I,67844-2-I
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. ROBERTO SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a ROBERT CARLOS SANCHEZ, Appellant.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v.ROBERTO SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a ROBERT CARLOS SANCHEZ, Appellant.

No. 67844-2-I

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE

FILED: March 11, 2013

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

LEACH, C.J. — Sanchez-Rodriguez appeals his convictions for two counts of assault.He claims that the court abused its discretion in admitting prior threat evidence, a witness impermissibly commented on his guilt, and the court impermissibly commented on the evidence.We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

Based on allegations that Sanchez-Rodriguez threatened his ex-wife, Jewell Jefferson, and her boyfriend, Derrick Sampson, with a pickaxe, the State charged him with two counts of second degree assault.

Before trial, the State moved to admit evidence that Sanchez-Rodriguez had threatened to kill Jefferson in an earlier incident.Over defense objections, the trial court admitted the evidence under ER404(b) to show that Jefferson reasonably feared the charged threat would be carried out.

At trial, the evidence established that Sanchez-Rodriguez and Jefferson were married ten years, had three children, and divorced in September 2010.

In late March 2011, Jefferson decided to spend a week in Vancouver, B.C., with her boyfriend, Derrick Sampson.Sanchez-Rodriguez asked if he could stay at Jefferson's home with their children while she was gone.Jefferson said he could, but only if he refrained from drinking around the children.While Jefferson was in Canada, Sanchez-Rodriguez texted and called her repeatedly and twice texted "no boyfriends."

On April 1, 2011, Sampson and Jefferson were on their way home when Jefferson's daughter called.Jefferson learned that Sanchez-Rodriguez had been drinking, was driving her truck, and was headed to a nearby casino.Sampson and Jefferson drove to the casino to look for her truck.As they parked in the casino parking lot, Sanchez-Rodriguez drove up and parked directly behind them.

Jefferson got out and told Sanchez-Rodriguez that she wanted her truck back and accused him of drinking.Sanchez-Rodriguez smelled of alcohol and looked intoxicated.When Jefferson told him she was not leaving the truck with him and would drive him home, Sanchez-Rodriguez became angry and yelled at her.He eventually got in the truck with Jefferson and slammed the door.They then followed Sampson's vehicle to Jefferson's home.

According to Jefferson, Sanchez-Rodriguez argued with her during the drive and repeatedly told her that she did not need a boyfriend.At one point, he slapped her hard on the back.

This argument escalated as they pulled into Jefferson's driveway.Sanchez-Rodriguez said he had found a job and asked if he could move in with her and the children.When Jefferson said no, he punched her on the left side of the face with his fist.

Jefferson said she was calling the police and jumped out of the truck.As she reached for her cell phone, Sanchez-Rodriguez told her not to call and grabbed a pickaxe that was sitting nearby.He raised it above his shoulders with both hands and started walking toward her.Jefferson testified that she thought he was going to kill her because he had threatened to kill her before.

Sampson arrived shortly after Jefferson and heard her tell Sanchez-Rodriguez, "No, don't do this."Sanchez-Rodriguez repeated, "No, no boyfriends."He quickly reached Jefferson.She stuck her head inside the truck for protection.Sanchez-Rodriguez then shoved her hard in the back with the pickaxe.

Sampson said, "That's enough now."Sanchez-Rodriguez turned toward Sampson and, holding the pickaxe up with both hands, said, "This is what you want."Sampson was afraid that Sanchez-Rodriguez was going to swing the pickaxe at him.

According to Jefferson, Sanchez-Rodriguez walked fast towards Sampson with the axe raised.When Sanchez-Rodriguez made a downward movement with the axe, Sampson caught it.Sampson gained control of the pickaxe andthrew it out of the way.Sanchez-Rodriguez then hit Sampson with his fist, and the men fought.During the fight, Sanchez-Rodriguez hit Sampson in the mouth, causing his lip to bleed.The men stopped fighting when Jefferson told them she had called the police.

Whatcom County Sherriff's Deputy Rod Cadman arrived and spoke with Jefferson and Sampson.Jefferson was upset, shaking, and on the verge of tears.Neither Jefferson nor Sampson appeared to have been drinking.Sanchez-Rodriguez, on the other hand, smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot, watery eyes, and swayed back and forth while talking to Cadman.

After waiving his Miranda¹ rights, Sanchez-Rodriguez told Cadman that Jefferson yelled at him on the drive from the casino and started hitting him when they arrived at the house.When he got out of the truck, Sampson ran over and started hitting and kicking him.He then grabbed the pickaxe and swung it in self-defense.He did not know why Jefferson and Sampson attacked him.He said nothing to Cadman about Jefferson threatening to cut him off from his children.

Deputy Cadman also made the following observation about Sanchez-Rodriguez's demeanor:

[PROSECUTOR]: Other than the symptoms of alcohol consumption that you described before, how would you characterize the Defendant's demeanor when you went and talked to him?

[WITNESS]: He was surprisingly calm.

[PROSECUTOR]: Why do you say surprisingly?

[WITNESS]: Well, given . . . he had just described that he had been . . . attacked, kicked and punched, you know, by two other people, and he described an attack that was violent enough where he picked up a pickaxe to defend himself.Yet in talking to him, I would expect him to be upset over something like that, and he was surprisingly calm.

[PROSECUTOR]: Did he remain calm as you took him to jail?

[WITNESS]: Yes.

Sanchez-Rodriguez testified that he had memory problems stemming from a head injury he suffered in a car accident in 2006.He denied drinking alcohol before the incident and denied hitting or slapping Jefferson.Contrary to his statements to Deputy Cadman, he testified that Jefferson was not yelling during the ride to the house and that they did not fight about the truck.Instead, he testified that Jefferson told him she was going to take the children to Canada and that she was going to call the police.When he asked why she would call the police, she said she did not want him to see the children.He claimed that she said this repeatedly.

After they got out of the truck, Jefferson pushed him.Sampson then came from behind the truck, and they started fighting.Sanchez-Rodriguez could not say who started the fight.He remembered getting struck with something and trying to get up from the ground.He did not remember if he hit Sampson.Hetestified that his memory was not completely clear as to what happened that night.

A jury convicted Sanchez-Rodriguez as charged.He appeals.

DECISION

Sanchez-Rodriguez first contends the trial court abused its discretion under ER404(b) in admitting his prior threat to kill Jefferson²We disagree.

ER404(b) prohibits the admission of "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts... to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith."Such evidence is admissible for other purposes, however, if it is relevant to a material issue.³In this case, the State's assault theory was that Sanchez-Rodriguez put Jefferson and Sampson in reasonable apprehension and imminent fear of bodily injury when he raised the pickaxe in a threatening manner.The trial court admitted Sanchez-Rodriguez's prior threat "to demonstrate [Jefferson's] state of mind, her reasonable fear."This was a proper basis to admit the evidence.⁴

Sanchez-Rodriguez contends, however, that the trial court abused its discretion because it relied on and misinterpreted the pluarlity decision in State v. Magers.⁵He argues that only four justices approved the use of prior misconduct evidence to show reasonable fear of bodily injury and that the concurring justices rejected that holding.This argument is flawed in several respects.First, the trial court expressly distinguished Magers and relied instead on "other prior cases."⁶Second, we recently rejected Sanchez-Rodriguez's reading of the Magersconcurrence, holding that the concurring justices "did not disagree with the proposition in the lead opinion that admission of evidence of the victim's state of mind would be proper under the right circumstances.Rather, they disagreed with that opinion's application of that proposition to the facts of that case."⁷We ultimately upheld the admission of ER404(b) evidence "to prove [the victim's] state of mind, a necessary element for the assault charge."⁸We adhere to our decision in State v. Johnson.⁹

Sanchez-Rodriguez next contends Deputy Cadman's testimony that he was "surprisingly calm" was an impermissible opinion on guilt that denied him afair trial.He concedes this contention is raised for the first time on appeal.He argues, however, that the testimony was manifest constitutional error and therefore reviewable under RAP 2.5(a).Alternatively, he argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the testimony below.There was no manifest error or ineffective assistance of counsel.

A witness may not offer an opinion regarding the defendant's guilt or veracity because such testimony invades the province of the jury.¹⁰Opinion testimony from a police officer raises additional concerns because "an officer's testimony often carries a special aura of reliability."¹¹But opinion testimony that is based on inferences from the evidence, does not comment directly on the defendant's guilt or veracity, and is otherwise helpful to the jury, does not generally constitute an opinion on guilt.¹²

Here, Deputy Cadman's statement that he was "surprised" by Sanchez-Rodriguez's calm demeanor was not a direct comment on his guilt or veracity, was based on inferences from the evidence, and was arguably helpful to the jury given the nature of the...