Opinion ID: 1163403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 37

Heading: Fatalistic Beliefs.

Text: Brett asserts the prosecutor's cross examination of Sherry Brett, Brett's mother, regarding Brett's fatalistic beliefs violated his right to free religious expression under Const. art. 1, § 11, which provides: Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion[.] During the penalty phase, Sherry Brett testified that Brett would have spells of depression and would become violent and self-destructive. On cross examination, the prosecutor followed up on this line of questioning. Q: Mr. Foister also asked you about the fact that your son gets depressed, and you said that he gets violent and self destructive; is that correct? A: Yes, he does. Q: He also presents a rather fatalistic attitude about life; isn't that correct. A: Like what? I don't understand what you're saying. Q: Doesn't he get depressed about things and hasn't he made a statement to you at least once in the past that within 15 years the end of the world will be here? A: Yes. I've heard him make that statement. Report of Proceedings vol. 15, at 95. On redirect, defense counsel elicited testimony from Sherry Brett that her son's fatalistic belief was one of the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, of which she and her son were followers. Brett argues the prosecutor's questioning violated his absolute freedom to religious belief and allowed the jury to draw an adverse inference from his constitutionally protected behavior. See State v. Rupe, 101 Wn.2d 664, 704-05, 683 P.2d 571 (1984). Brett's argument is not persuasive. [49] First, impermissible use of constitutionally protected conduct is not a violation of Const. art. 1, § 11, it is a violation of due process. See Rupe, 101 Wn.2d at 706 (citing Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 885-86, 77 L.Ed.2d 235, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 2747 (1983)). Brett does not allege such a violation. Second, in Rupe, the State's closing argument emphasized the defendant was a very dangerous man and deserved the death penalty because he owned a collection of firearms, including a semi-automatic rifle. Rupe, 101 Wn.2d at 703-04. Here, the State did not make an adverse inference based upon Brett's belief nor even address this belief in closing argument. See Rupe, 101 Wn.2d at 705 (the State may not draw adverse inferences from the exercise of a constitutional right.). Under these circumstances, Brett's rights were not infringed.