Opinion ID: 2582487
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Everson's Testimony

Text: ¶ 62 Yates contends that the trial court erred in permitting Lynn Everson to testify as an expert on prostitution. Yates argues, first, that Everson's practical experience was insufficient to qualify her as an expert. Working for the Spokane Regional Health District, Everson had gained 13 years of experience providing outreach services to prostitutes; she worked in the needle exchange program and personally provided prostitutes with food, clothing, condoms, and treatment referrals. She had worked with approximately 300 individuals involved in prostitution. Yates argues that, because Everson had never been a prostitute herself or accompanied a prostitute on a job, the trial court erred in finding her qualified under ER 702. But an expert need not have acquired his or her knowledge through such personal involvement. See State v. Campbell, 78 Wash.App. 813, 823, 901 P.2d 1050 (1995) (permitting police officers to testify as experts on gang culture, even though they were not `from the same neighborhood, city or county' as the gang members). As this court stated in State v. Ortiz, 119 Wash.2d 294, 831 P.2d 1060 (1992), [p]ractical experience is sufficient to qualify a witness as an expert. Id. at 310, 831 P.2d 1060. Here, the trial court properly concluded that Everson's practical experience qualified her as an expert. ¶ 63 Yates's second argument is that Everson's testimony constituted improper habit evidence under ER 406. [25] As the State points out, Everson's testimony was admitted under ER 702, not ER 406. The trial court ruled that Everson could testify as an expert as to the general practices of prostitutes but could not testify as to the habits of specific victims  i.e., as to what the victims always or never did. See 50 VRP at 4398, 4408-09, 4412. Everson thus testified, based upon her experience, about the general practices of prostitutes. She testified that prostitutes generally used drugs and alcohol, asked for payment up front, chose where the negotiated sex act would occur, commonly engaged in oral and vaginal sex, and avoided anal intercourse because it made them more vulnerable. Similar expert testimony has been deemed permissible under ER 702. For example, in State v. Simon, 64 Wash. App. 948, 831 P.2d 139 (1991), rev'd in part on other grounds, 120 Wash.2d 196, 840 P.2d 172 (1992), a detective who testified that he had been involved in investigating street prostitution for over 6 years, that he had investigated over 400 prostitution related crimes, and that he had investigated over 50 promoting prostitution cases, offered testimony about his contact and conversations with prostitutes regarding the pimp/prostitute relationship. Id. at 963, 831 P.2d 139. ¶ 64 Even if the admission of Everson's testimony were regarded as an abuse of discretion, the error was harmless. See Bourgeois, 133 Wash.2d at 403, 945 P.2d 1120. Other witnesses testified that prostitutes generally asked for payment up front, and the crime scene evidence regarding the victims' missing items supported the State's theory that Yates robbed Mercer and Ellis. Everson's testimony was properly admitted under ER 702.