Source: https://casetext.com/case/state-v-huelett-1
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 22:38:28
Document Index: 793324147

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 415', '§ 3507', '§ 1176', '§ 872', '§ 250', '§ 445', '§ 358']

State v. Huelett, 92 Wn. 2d 967 | Casetext
92 Wn. 2d 967 (Wash. 1979)
Statev.Huelett
The Supreme Court of Washington. En BancDec 13, 1979
92 Wn. 2d 967•603 P.2d 1258•92 Wash. 2d 967•
[1] Witnesses — Refreshing Recollection — Use of Memoranda — Determination. A witness' use of memoranda to refresh a past recollection, when the memoranda have not been admitted in evidence, lies within the discretion of the trial court. The court must determine that such refreshing is necessary and that the memoranda is used to aid, rather than to supplant, the witness' memory.
[2] Courts — Judicial Discretion — Abuse. Judicial discretion has not been abused unless a reviewing court can find that no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.
WRIGHT, J., UTTER, C.J., and HOROWITZ and HICKS, JJ., dissent by separate opinion; STAFFORD, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case.
Bruce D. Erickson, for petitioner.
Petitioner appeals a second-degree burglary conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted review on a single issue, i.e., the propriety of admitting testimony as a recollection refreshed. We affirm.
On direct examination the former police officer, apparently using his written police report, testified that in response to a reported burglary he had gone to the premises and lifted the fingerprint from an object in the apartment. The entire cross-examination was as follows:
Q. You are using something to refresh your memory?
[A] distinction must constantly be borne in mind between (1) refreshing recollection, and (2) a past recollection recorded. In the former situation, with which we are concerned here, the notes or memoranda used by the witness are not placed in evidence, but are used to trigger his psychological mechanisms of recognition and recollection, enabling the witness to then testify from his own memory. The testimony is the evidence, the writing is not. With respect to past recollection recorded, the notes or memoranda are the evidence . . .
In short then, the criteria for the use of notes or other memoranda to refresh a witness' recollection are (1) that the witness' memory needs refreshing, (2) that opposing counsel have the right to examine the writing, and (3) that the trial court be satisfied that the witness is not being coached — that the witness is using the notes to aid, and not to supplant, his own memory.
The extent to which the witness may use such a memorandum is for the trial judge in his discretion to determine, and his ruling will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of such discretion.
2 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 415 (13th ed. 1972).
ROSELLINI, DOLLIVER, and WILLIAMS, JJ., and PATRICK, J. Pro Tem., concur.
I dissent. The facts are correctly stated by the majority. However, a few additional facts will assist in better understanding the matter.
Three witnesses testified at the burglary trial. The testimony of each was essential to Huelett's conviction. O'Shea testified that his apartment was burglarized, that he does not know Huelett and that he did not give him permission to enter the apartment. Marsha Jackson testified she is a qualified fingerprint expert and that Huelett's prints match those found in the apartment. The fingerprints identified as Huelett's by Ms. Jackson were found in the apartment by Larry Allen, a police officer at the time of the burglary, but not at trial time. Without Allen's testimony, the chain of evidence was broken — there was not proof that the prints identified as Huelett's came from the O'Shea apartment.
Here Allen testified unequivocally on cross-examination that there was not an independent recollection. In Preston v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 198 Wn. 157, 87 P.2d 475 (1939), the witness also acknowledged she had no independent recollection. There, as here, there was no attempt to introduce the memorandum — stenographic notes — as an accurate record. Rejecting her testimony as inadmissible, this court concluded "the trial court ruled correctly in refusing to permit the witness to appear to be giving evidence from refreshed recollection when she had no recollection." Preston, at 164.
The general rule is that entries in diaries are inadmissible as evidence, although they may be used to refresh the memory of a witness if after such use he can testify from an independent recollection of the matter. Stated another way: A contemporaneous memorandum made by a witness may be used to refresh his memory; that is, a witness may be allowed to refresh his memory by looking at a printed or written paper or memorandum and, if he thereby recollects a fact or circumstance, he may testify to it. It is not the memorandum which is evidence but the recollection. Schmidt v. Van Woerden, 181 Wn. 39, 42 P.2d 3; State v. Jensen, 194 Wn. 515, 78 P.2d 600.
The witness testified from personal knowledge and independent recollection, although he had refreshed his memory by checking some of the records of the Kerr Motor Company. To do as he did was entirely proper. Schmidt v. Van Woerden, 181 Wn. 39, 42 P.2d 3; State v. Paschall, 182 Wn. 304, 47 P.2d 15.
Courts in other states as well as text writers often have stated or indicated that after reviewing the memorandum, the witness must testify from an independent recollection. 5 C. Chamberlayne, The Modern Law of Evidence § 3507, at 4818 n. 1 (1916); 2 E. Conrad, Modern Trial Evidence § 1176, at 336 (1956); 2 B. Elliott, The Law of Evidence § 872, at 153-54 (1904); J. McKelvey, Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 250, at 461 (3d ed. 1924); Annot., Refreshment of Recollection by Use of Memoranda or Other Writings, 82 A.L.R.2d 473, 497 (1962); 10 Am.Jur. Proof of Facts, Refreshing Recollection Proof 1, at 258 (1961); 81 Am.Jur.2d Witnesses § 445, at 453-54 (1976); 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 358, at 85 (1957); Moncrief v. Detroit, 398 Mich. 181, 187-90, 247 N.W.2d 783 (1976); Otinger v. State, 53 Ala. App. 287, 291, 299 So.2d 333, 336-37 (1974); State v. Crow, 486 S.W.2d 248, 257 (Mo. 1972); Great Atlantic Pac. Tea Co. v. Nobles, 202 So.2d 603, 605 (Fla.Ct.App. 1967); State v. Scott, 199 Kan. 203, 206, 428 P.2d 458, 460 (1967); State v. Adams, 181 Neb. 75, 82, 147 N.W.2d 144, 151 (1966); People v. Griswold, 405 Ill. 533, 541-42, 92 N.E.2d 91, 95 (1950); State v. Perelli, 128 Conn. 172, 175, 21 A.2d 389, 390-91 (1941).
In Bank of Poneto v. Kimmel, 91 Ind. App. 325, 168 N.E. 604 (1929), it was held that where cross-examination develops that the witness has no independent recollection, even after seeing the book and entries therein, it is proper to strike the testimony. In People v. Jenkins, 10 Ill. App.3d 166, 171, 294 N.E.2d 24, 29 (1973), it was held that "a witness may refresh his memory by the use of any instrument, but must then testify from his own independent memory."
It is true the use of memoranda is within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Little, 57 Wn.2d 516, 358 P.2d 120 (1961). That, however, does not and cannot change this rule: Before a witness may testify by using a writing to refresh his recollection, the witness must be able to state, after examining the writing, that he now recalls the facts therein on the basis of his own present — although refreshed — memory. Harper, Drake Assocs., Inc. v. Jewett Sherman Co., 49 Wis.2d 330, 342, 182 N.W.2d 551, 558 (1971).
In the instant case the trial court clearly erred by refusing to strike Allen's testimony. Likewise, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court. Because the testimony was improper in the posture in which it was offered — as refreshed recollection — it should not have been admitted.
UTTER, C.J., and HOROWITZ and HICKS, JJ., concur with WRIGHT, J.