Opinion ID: 2598178
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Manifest Constitutional Error and Improper Witness Opinion

Text: ¶ 55 No case of this court has held that a manifest error infringing a constitutional right necessarily exists where a witness expresses an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact that is not objected to at trial. Prior decisions in the Court of Appeals have found alleged improper witness opinion testimony not to constitute manifest error. [3] ¶ 56 However, in Kirkman the Court of Appeals relied upon Dolan, 118 Wash.App. at 330, 73 P.3d 1011 and State v. Saunders, 120 Wash.App. 800, 811, 86 P.3d 232 (2004), in concluding that improper witness testimony can be raised for the first time on appeal as a manifest constitutional error. [4] See also State v. Mendoza-Solorio, 108 Wash.App. 823, 834-35, 33 P.3d 411 (2001) (assuming, without deciding, that the facts raised a manifest constitutional error but finding error harmless). ¶ 57 In Carlin, the Court of Appeals did seem to hold that expression of an opinion touching upon a defendant's guilt, not objected to at trial, amounts to a manifest error under RAP 2.5(a)(3). But Carlin's apparent holding in this regard was squarely rejected by the Court of Appeals in Heatley, 70 Wash. App. at 586, 854 P.2d 658. There, the court said it rejected Carlin to the extent it is read as holding that a claim that testimony is an opinion on guilt necessarily alleges a manifest constitutional error that will be considered for the first time on appeal under RAP 2.5(a). Id. (emphasis added). As the Court of Appeals noted in Heatley,  Carlin provides no analysis and cites no relevant authority for the proposition that this is the type of `manifest error' contemplated by RAP 2.5(a)(3). Id. at 583, 854 P.2d 658. ¶ 58 In light of the underlying rationale for RAP 2.5(a)(3), Madison and Heatley provide the better approach. Admission of witness opinion testimony on an ultimate fact, without objection, is not automatically reviewable as a manifest constitutional error. Manifest error requires a nearly explicit statement by the witness that the witness believed the accusing victim. Requiring an explicit or almost explicit witness statement on an ultimate issue of fact is consistent with our precedent holding the manifest error exception is narrow. WWJ Corp., 138 Wash.2d at 603, 980 P.2d 1257. ¶ 59 Requiring an explicit or almost explicit statement by a witness is also consistent with this court's precedent that it is improper for any witness to express a personal opinion on the defendant's guilt. State v. Garrison, 71 Wash.2d 312, 315, 427 P.2d 1012 (1967); State v. Trombley, 132 Wash. 514, 518, 232 P. 326 (1925).