IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. MIRANDA MARIE JENKINS, Appellant. No. 70838-4-1

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: January 26, 2015 r-0

CO Verellen, A.C.J. — Prior to Miranda Jenkins' trial for forgery, the court excluded evidence relating to prior misconduct ofan investigating police officer. The court ruled thatthe evidence was irrelevant, prejudicial, and would be distracting to thejury. Jenkins challenges that ruling on appeal, arguing that it violated her constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to present a defense. Because the court's ruling was well within its discretion and Jenkins' remaining argument is raised for the first time on appeal, we affirm.
FACTS Based on evidence that Jenkins attempted to cash a forged check at a bank, the State charged her with forgery. Priorto trial, the State moved in limine to preclude the defense from asking Detective Brian Taylor about his alleged misconduct in a prior case. The misconduct involved an alleged unlawful seizure of a cellphone and an improper interrogationNo. 70838-4-1/2 technique. Defense counsel maintained this evidence was relevant to the defense theory that the police, including Detective Taylor, mishandled the investigation of Jenkins' case. Defense counsel noted that Detective Taylor returned a cellphone to Jenkins without searching it for text messages that might have helped the defense and that he refused to log into evidence an envelope that Jenkins broughtto the police station after her arrest. Inexcluding the misconduct evidence, the court noted that Detective Taylor's alleged unlawful actions inthe prior case were unlike his alleged "sloppy" investigation in Jenkins' case.1 The court concluded that the evidence was "unrelated," "confusing, prejudicial, and not relevant," and that it would be "a big distraction and very 

### inappropriate."2 The evidence attrial established that on July 31, 2012, Jenkins entered a Wells 

### Fargo bank inSeaTac and attempted to cash a checkwritten for$1,830. The bank teller, Lashanya Topps, quicklybecame suspicious. Topps testified that Jenkins was 

### unusually talkative and appeared anxious and "justkind ofshifty."3 Jenkins claimed the checkwas paymentforcleaning rental units, but inTopps' experience, the check amountwas unusually large forthat kind of work. The check itselfwas unusual in that it
was business-size, but itbore a personal name, not a business name, and a 

### handwritten payee and amount ratherthan the usual typed information.

1 Report ofProceedings (RP) (July 11, 2013) at 13. 2Id, at 13-14. 3 Id. at 103.No. 70838-4-1/3 Topps called the account owners, Texas residents Kimberly and David Smith, while Jenkins waited. The Smiths said they owned no property in Washington, had
never met Jenkins or mailed her a check, and had never given her permission to cash
or possess any oftheir checks. Topps called 911. A shorttime later, Detective Ryan Abbott ofthe King County Sheriffs Department arrived at the bank and spoke withJenkins. She told him a different story than she told 

### Topps. She said the checkwas paymentfor a house painting job she received through an ad she placed on Craigslist. Although she said she spent a week painting the house, she could not tell Detective Abbott where the house was located or even what city itwas 

### in. She claimed someone had given her a ride to thejobsite every day using a GPS. Jenkins also told Detective Abbottthat she received the check by mail in a United 

### States Postal Service (USPS) envelope. She handed him a USPS shipping label that 

### allegedly accompanied the checkin the mail. Using hislaptop, DeputyAbbottran the tracking number on the label through the USPS website. The number came back as unverifiable. Deputy Abbott then placed Jenkins under arrest. 

### Jenkins mentioned to Deputy Abbott that her boyfriend, Tom Nist, brought her to the bank in his Bronco. Several officers then went to the parking lot to find Nist. 

### Deputy Hansen Hsutestified over a hearsay objection that he "did a sweep of 

### [Nist's] Bronco, as hementioned that hehad a shotgun in there."4 Deputy Hsu located the shotgun and ran the serial number to determine whether itwas stolen. DeputyAllen Tag testified, again over a hearsay objection, that Deputy Hsu toldhim there was a

4 Id. at 159.No. 70838-4-1/4
firearm in Nist's Bronco. Deputy Hsu and Deputy Tag both testified that Nist made statements indicating the gun was his and that he kept it in his Bronco. Deputy Abbotttestified that he collected a handwriting sample from Jenkins. He placed the forged check and Jenkins' cellphone into evidence and later sentthe handwriting sample to the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory for analysis. Forensic scientistAndrew Szymanksi concluded that Jenkins had signed the endorsement signature on the back ofthe check, that itwas highly probable that she did not authorthe payee information on the front, and that he could neither identify nor eliminate her as the author ofthe payor signature. 

### Detective Taylor testified that he prepared the case forfiling. He ordered a copy of Jenkins' driver's license, wrote the certification for determination of probable cause, and referred the case to the prosecutor's office. Shortly afterthe referral, Jenkins and 

### Nistcame to Taylor's precinct with a USPS Priority Mail envelope. Jenkins told Taylor that the forged check came to her in that envelope. The envelope lacked postal 

### markings, a postal slip, or any signs that it had come through the mail. Detective Taylor testified that "[tjhese envelopes are out in the public area ofthe Post Office foranybody 

### to grab, so Icouldn't prove that this envelope came through the mail, so Ididn't think it
was relevant."5 Detective Taylor did not enterthe envelope intoevidence or document 

### itsexistence because he "didn't feel it would help the case at all."6

5id at 26. 6 Id. at 25.No. 70838-4-1/5
Detective Ricky Bowen testified, however, that he spoke with Jenkins at the precinct and took possession ofthe envelope. He placed the envelope in Detective Taylor's in box because Detective Taylor was not present. After Detective Bowen testified, defense counsel asked the court to reconsider its 

### ruling excluding Detective Taylor's priormisconduct. Counsel stated, "I'mjust making 

### my motion for the record, and I'll leave it at that."7 The State reiterated its position that the evidence was irrelevant, prejudicial, and confusing. The court maintained its prior ruling. Neither Jenkins nor Nist testified at trial. Defense investigator Russ Williams, a 

### former USPS employee, acknowledged that the envelope Jenkins left with Detective 

### Taylor had no postal markings, return address, or tracking numbers typically found on items processed through the mail. Also, Jenkins' postal service tracking slipwas not printed on the type ofpapertypicallyused for printingsuch slips. Jenkins' father, Billy Jenkins, testified that he had memory problems and could 

### not"pull things together right now."8 Nevertheless, he testified that Jenkins lived with him around the time of her arrest. He remembered her receiving multiple checks inthe 

### mail and her saying that some of them were bad checks. He later said he remembered 

### Jenkins saying that some of the checks "didn't look right."9 He said hetold her she should go to the bank"to see ifthese checks are legitimate."10

7id at 176. 8RP (July 16, 2013) at 73. 9 Id at 82-83. 10Id. at 86.No. 70838-4-1/6
Inclosing argument, the prosecutorfocused on Jenkins' behavior at the bank, her implausible and inconsistent stories, the nature ofthe check itself, and the absence 

### of any evidence that the envelope was ever mailed. Defense counsel conceded that the check was forged, but argued thatthe State failed to prove that Jenkins' knew itwas 

### forged. He emphasized thatthe facts presented by the State came "from an 

### incomplete, faulty and fundamentallyflawed investigation."11 Thejury found Jenkins guilty of forgery. She appeals. DECISION Jenkins first contends the courtviolated her constitutional rights to confront and 

### cross-examine witnesses, to present a defense, and to a fair trial when itexcluded evidence ofDeputy Taylor's prior misconduct. We disagree. 

### The United States and Washington Constitutions guarantee criminaldefendants 

### therighttoconfrontandcross-examine adversewitnesses.12 Although therightto confrontation should be zealously guarded, thatrightis notwithout limitation.13 The rightto confrontation and the associated rightto cross-examine adverse witnesses are 

### limited by general considerations ofrelevance.14 And ifthe evidence involves the prior misconduct of a witness, relevance is also examined in light of ER608.15 In such 

### cases, "atrial court may consider whether the instance of misconduct is relevant to the

11 id at 152. 12 U.S. Const, amend. VI; Wash. Const, art. I, § 22; State v. Smith, 148 Wn.2d 122, 131,59P.3d74(2002). 13 State v. Darden. 145 Wn.2d 612, 621, 41 P.3d 1189(2002). 14 Id.; State v. O'Connor, 155 Wn.2d 335, 348-49, 119 P.3d 806 (2005). 15O'Connor, 155 Wn.2d at 349.No. 70838-4-1/7
witness's veracity on the stand and whether it is germane or relevant to the issues 

### presented at trial."16 "Thethreshold to admit relevant evidence is very low. Even minimally relevant evidence is admissible."17 Once a showing ofrelevance is made, courts must considerwhetherthe evidence is so prejudicial as to disruptthe fairness ofthe fact-finding process and 

### balance any prejudice against the defendant's need for the information sought.18 In general, "[t]heneed forcross-examination on misconduct diminishes with the 

### significance of the witness in the state's case."19 Thetrial court's ruling isreviewed for abuse of discretion.20 

### Applying these principles here, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Evidence is relevant if ithas a tendency to make the existence of any fact of 

### consequence to the action more or less probable than itwould be without the evidence.21 Jenkins contends the fact ofconsequence in hertrial "was whether [she] 

### knew the check was forged."22 She argues that "[l]aw enforcement's investigation into 

### theorigins ofthis checkwould tend tomake this fact more or less probable."23 Shethen

16 id 17 Darden, 145 Wn.2d at 621. 18 id at 622. 19 State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731, 766, 24 P.3d 1006(2001). 20O'Connor, 155 Wn.2d at 351. 21 ER401. 22 App. Br. at 9. 23 Id.No. 70838-4-1/8


### argues that "Detective Taylor's priormisconduct is probative to the quality ofthe 

### investigationconducted inMs. Jenkins's case."24 Jenkins fails to establish relevance for several reasons. First, Jenkins' argument is that law enforcement's investigation, not the prior misconduct evidence, has a tendency to make the fact ofconsequence more or less probable, and that the prior misconduct evidence is relevant because it is probative ofthe quality ofthe investigation. Thus, the logical connection between the evidence and the fact to be 

### proved attrial is "simplytoo attenuated" to establish relevance.25 Second, as the trial court correctly noted, Detective Taylor's misconduct inthe 

### priorcase, i.e., an unlawful seizure of a phone and an improperinterrogation, was distinctly differentfrom and unrelated to his alleged sloppyinvestigation in the instant
case. Detective Taylor performed no interrogations inJenkins' case and was not 

### accused ofunlawfully seizing evidence. The prior misconduct evidence would thus 

### shed no light on either the quality of Detective Taylor's investigation in this case or Jenkins' knowledge that the check was forged. 

### Finally, to the extentJenkins' arguments could somehow be read as implying that the misconduct evidence was relevantto Detective Taylor's credibility, she fails to 

### demonstrate, nor do we perceive, any connection between that evidence and his 

### "veracity on the stand."26 The trial court was well within its discretion in excluding the prior misconduct evidence.
24idat10. 25 See O'Connor. 155 Wn.2d at 352. 26See id. at 349.No. 70838-4-1/9
Jenkins next contends the court abused its discretion in allowing testimony concerning the firearm found in her boyfriend's truck. Jenkins contends the evidence
was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. But Jenkins did not object to the evidence on those grounds below. Her sole objection below was thatthe testimony was hearsay. 

### We generally do not reviewarguments raised for the first time on appeal.27 Jenkins offers no basis for us to undertake such review in this case. We decline to do so. Affirmed.

WE CONCUR: 

# A^d, 4 T

27 RAP 2.5(a).