Opinion ID: 2629208
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence of Adams's Alleged Bias

Text: Thomas asserts that his right to confront witnesses was violated by the trial court's exclusion of cross-examination of Adams, who tape recorded Horyst and elicited his recount of Geist's murder and Thomas's involvement in it. Thomas argues he should have been allowed to present evidence (1) that Adams initially contacted police to offer a trade of information about an unsolved murder for leniency in drug charges pending against him, and (2) that Adams wore a body wire to record the conversation with Horyst as part of a plea agreement with the State. The State moved in limine to exclude evidence of Adams's plea agreement as irrelevant. The State clarified that it would not be calling Adams to testify; rather, Horyst would be testifying. Thomas agreed that Horyst would not be allowed to testify as to any hearsay statements made by Adams and that Adams's plea agreement was irrelevant unless Thomas called him as a witness. Thus, the court ruled that no reference would be made to Adams's plea agreement unless he was later called as a witness, [6] which neither side did. Thomas was the only one who referenced Adams's plea agreement when he objected to the State's question to Detective Webb: [w]hat, if anything, did Mr. Adams want in exchange for his help in this case? RP at 4762. In the objection, defense counsel stated, [o]bjection, Your Honor, irrelevant. The Court has ruled pretrial that we can't even go into any agreements of Mr. Adams unless he's called as a witness. He's not been ... and won't be. RP at 4762. The State withdrew the question. Thomas's argument on appeal, then, is disingenuous. The State is correct that the jury did not hear evidence about Adams's plea agreement because Thomas objected to its admission in the first place and objected to it at trial. Thomas maintains, however, that Detective Webb's testimony on direct revealed hearsay statements made to him from Adams to the effect that Adams knew who killed Geist. Thomas argues that admission of these hearsay statements as preliminary, to which Thomas objected, made Adams a witness against Thomas, thereby allowing him to subject Adams's statements to impeachment for motive and bias, just as they would be had Adams testified as a witness at trial. Had he been given the opportunity, Thomas argues he would have pointed out that he never told Horyst that he had killed Geist or that Horyst had ever told Adams that Thomas had killed Geist. Thus, he argues that the trial court erred in disallowing him to put on evidence of Adams's motive to lie or his bias, i.e., his plea agreement. Detective Webb mentioned Adams in the context of explaining how suspicion shifted to Thomas during the investigation. Thus, it is arguable whether this statement by Adams was hearsay at alli.e., that it was being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Also, since the record does not reflect that Thomas ever sought to introduce evidence of Adams's bias pursuant to ER 806, either through Detective Webb or otherwise, this claim was not preserved for appeal. See State v. Pam, 101 Wash.2d 507, 511, 680 P.2d 762 (1984), overruled on grounds by State v. Olson, 126 Wash.2d 315, 893 P.2d 629 (1995).