State v. Vaile
| Decision Date | 11 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 37943-4-III |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. DARNAI LEON VAILE, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
When sheriff deputies responded to a report of an unwanted kissing at a Spokane Valley bar, they found a large group of people in the parking lot. As they interviewed witnesses, Darnai Vaile approached them. After indicating that he had a knife Vaile and the deputies struggled, with the deputies using brute force to bring Vaile to the ground and handcuff him.
At trial, several witnesses testified that Vaile was not being aggressive or confrontational with the deputies. Vaile presented a 10-second cell phone video taken by an onlooker that recorded him on the ground struggling with deputies who were trying to handcuff him. The recording includes audio statements made by the person recording and by Vaile, who can be heard exclaiming that he is Ex. D-103. The trial court determined that the statements were inadmissible hearsay and while allowing Vaile to play the video, excluded the audio statements from being played to the jury. Despite this ruling, the court allowed Vaile to testify about the statements he made during his arrest that were captured in the audio recording.
The jury found Vaile not guilty of two counts of third degree assault, but guilty of resisting arrest.
On appeal, Vaile raises three assignments of error; two of them related to the trial court's evidentiary ruling excluding the audio statements made in the video. First, he argues that the recorded statements qualified as exceptions to the hearsay rule as either excited utterance or then-existing condition and the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the statements. Alternatively, Vaile contends that the exclusion violated his constitutional right to present a defense. We agree in part with the trial court's evidentiary rulings, but in balancing the lack of prejudice to the State against the compelling nature of Vaile's recorded statement, we hold that excluding the evidence violated Vaile's constitutional right to present a defense. We therefore reverse Vaile's conviction for resisting arrest and remand for a new trial.[1]
We begin by acknowledging that this is an emotionally and racially charged case. As defense counsel noted in her opening statement, it is a case about perceptions. The police have the perception of a very large (6'10" 300 pound) suspect coming toward them yelling with fists clenched who is refusing to comply with commands to stop and sit. When they indicated they were going to pat him for weapons, Vaile indicated that he had a knife and then reached into his pocket and refused to comply with commands to remove his hands or drop the knife. After tossing the knife to the ground, Vaile continued to struggle with police. It took several deputies to get Vaile on the ground. An officer admittedly struck him with a baton and kneeled on him in order to handcuff him.
Darnai Vaile and several of his witnesses have a different perspective. They testified that Vaile tried to cooperate by walking toward the police with his arms up and his hands open, volunteering that he had a knife and he was trying to give it to the officers. Vaile and his witnesses believe that police overreacted in taking Vaile to the ground. They testified that the police were "beating" Vaile despite Vaile's attempts to comply. Vaile testified that once on the ground, he attempted to cooperate but could not get his hands out from underneath him because the police were kneeling on him.
Despite the racial overtones of the incident, Vaile raises only two challenges to his conviction, both of them pertaining to the exclusion of recorded statements. He did not raise any issues in his assignments of error or briefing claiming his arrest or conviction were infected by racism. Nevertheless, the separate opinion sua sponte raises and then finds as a factual matter that most of those involved in this case are guilty of intentional racism or even worse, apathy. We disagree with this path for two reasons.
First our justice system is based on the principle of party presentation, in which the courts, as neutral arbiters generally decide only the issues raised by the parties. United States v. Sineneng-Smith, __ U.S. __, 140 S.Ct. 1575, 1579, 206 L.Ed.2d 866 (2020). As Justice Ginsburg noted in one of her last majority opinions, "[courts] do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right," but rather should "normally decide only questions presented by the parties." Id. at 1579. While this principle is not ironclad and should yield under extraordinary circumstances, in this case we are reversing on grounds raised by the appellant and do not need to take the extraordinary step of deciding the case on grounds not raised or briefed by the parties.
Second, when appellate courts begin deciding facts and issues sua sponte, it raises concerns of partiality and lack of neutrality. "What makes a system adversarial rather than inquisitorial is . . . the presence of a judge who does not (as an inquisitor does) conduct the factual and legal investigation himself, but instead decides on the basis of facts and arguments pro and con adduced by the parties." McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 181 n.2, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991).
Systemic racism exists and we continue to work toward its eradication. And while history, statistics, current events, and human nature must inform our decisions, they cannot be used as the basis for a decision when racism has not been raised, briefed, or found. This is not to say that it did not exist in this case. But the separate opinion's conclusion of racism relies on information outside the record, facts that have not been found, and issues that have not been raised. We do not consider the Supreme Court's directive to require courts to raise issues sua sponte or decide cases on issues that the parties have not briefed. Since we are reversing Vaile's conviction, there is no need for additional briefing on matters not raised by the parties.
The case began at the Peking Palace Restaurant where sisters Patricia Murray and Julia Napier were socializing, playing pool, and singing karaoke. During the evening they met Darnai Vaile. At one point, Vaile kissed Murray without her consent, and she called the police.
When Deputies Michael Vicini and Clay Hilton arrived, there was a large group of people in the parking lot, including Murray and her sister Napier. Deputy Vicini made contact with Murray who began to explain what happened. After Murray described the person who kissed her, Vaile walked around a corner and began approaching Deputy Vicini and Murray. Deputy Vicini testified that Vaile matched the description of the suspect provided by Murray.[2] Deputies Vicini and Hilton both testified that Vaile approached Deputy Vicini and Murray in an aggressive manner, yelling with fists clenched. Vaile pushed passed someone who tried to stop him, and continued toward the deputy, yelling that he wanted to tell his side of the story. As Vaile approached, Deputy Vicini told Vaile to stop and sit on the curb. Vaile refused these commands and circled around behind Deputy Vicini.
Based on Vaile's agitated demeanor and their concern for safety, Deputy Hilton told Vaile that he was going to pat Vaile down for weapons. Vaile volunteered that he had a knife and put his hand in his pocket. Deputy Vicini grabbed Vaile's wrist and told Vaile to leave the knife in his pocket. Vaile did not comply, which caused Deputy Vicini concern for his safety.
Deputies Vicini and Hilton continued to struggle with Vaile. At one point, while Deputy Vicini had two hands on Vaile's wrist, Deputy Hilton testified that Vaile was able to lift Deputy Vicini off the ground and pull out the knife. Vaile dropped the knife on the ground. At this point, Deputy Criswell[3] joined the struggle and Vaile was struck with a baton. Deputy Vicini testified that the strike had no effect on Vaile who continued to struggle with the three officers. One or more officers conducted a leg sweep on Vaile and took him to the ground.
As they were struggling with Vaile, a crowd of people approached and began yelling at the officers, refusing to comply with commands to back up. The officers were able to get Vaile on his stomach, but he refused commands to remove his hands from underneath his body. With possibly three or four officers on top of him, and Deputy Hilton's knee on his head, deputies were able to handcuff Vaile.
Deputy Vicini acknowledged that Vaile was not making threats to the officers, and was not threatening the officers with the knife. Other than resisting his arrest, Vaile was not fighting with the officers. Deputy Hilton acknowledged that Vaile was not making verbal threats toward the officers or attempting to physically assault them.
As Deputy Vicini was handcuffing Vaile, Deputy Hilton turned toward the crowd who had gathered nearby. Deputy Hilton testified that Murray and Napier were within arm's reach of Deputy Hilton and were yelling and screaming at the officers. Deputy Hilton testified that he told Murray and particularly Napier to get back several times. When Napier refused to step back, Deputy Hilton told her she was under arrest for obstructing. As he reached for his handcuffs Napier spun around and hit Deputy Hilton in the face, leaving a red mark under his eye. Deputy Hilton put Napier in a "hair hold" and took her to the ground and placed her in handcuffs.[4] In addition to their own testimony, defendants Vaile and Napier called three witnesses who were also at the restaurant that night.[5] These witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial