Opinion ID: 2514211
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did Hillius' testimony violate an order in limine and result in an unfair trial?

Text: Before Hillius testified, the court granted a defense motion excluding from Hillius' testimony evidence of personal habits of Mr. Clark, or [Hillius'] perception of Mr. Clark's mental state that he is losing it [due to stress stemming from the charges]. RP (Apr. 4, 1997) at 4624 (trial). Clark argues Hillius' statement that, after saying police removed DNA evidence of Clark from Roxanne Doll's body, Clark [j]ust looked at me, justit was like I was looking like I could look right through him, which is unreal, like he didn't care, like there is no feelings there at all, RP (Apr. 4, 1997) at 4640 (trial), violated the order in limine on mental state evidence described above. Clark's counsel did not object, however, when Hillius made that statement in court, and therefore the objection was raised for the first time on appeal contrary to RAP 2.5(a). Nevertheless it is clear this testimony did not violate the order in limine. Clark was aware that Hillius had made a statement that Clark appeared to be under a lot of stress as a result of the charges and appeared to be losing it. Clark's counsel specified the scope of the motion in limine: So I want it clear and when I said mental state, what I'm talking about is Mr. Hillius' view that Mr. Clark was under a great deal of stress because of the charges. I think his term was losing it. RP (Apr. 4, 1997) at 4623-24 (trial). The court granted this motionthat Hillius may not chat about the personal habits of Mr. Clark, or his perception of Mr. Clark's mental state that he is losing it[.] Id. at 4624. Hillius' testimony did not violate this order in limine because he did not testify about Clark's mental state, or say anything about the stress Clark was reportedly under. The most correct characterization of Hillius' testimony is that he spoke to Clark's demeanor as Clark told the witness they took my DNA sample out of her butt. Id. at 4639. This is similar to the demeanor testimony of the paramedic in Stenson, 132 Wash.2d at 720-22, 940 P.2d 1239 (paramedic testified defendant was calm and showed no grief when told his wife was dying). Such testimony is proper if based upon personal observation of the defendant's conduct. Id. at 724, 940 P.2d 1239. Here Hillius recounted his personal observation and laid a factual foundation for this observation. As noted, Clark's counsel did not object to the testimony at trial and did not move for a mistrial after the testimony. There was no error on this issue.