Opinion ID: 2632228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: testimony of asil hubley

Text: (3) Whether, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, sections 3 and 22 of the Washington Constitution, the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of prosecution witness Asil Hubley. Appellant contends the prosecutor's conduct in selectively asserting the truthfulness and reliability of [co-defendant] Wilson's `excited utterance' to Keith D. Burks by offering the testimony of Asil Hubley violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, sections 3 and 22 of the Washington Constitution. [288] Appellant attempts to argue that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Asil Hubley. He claims the prosecuting attorney impeached Mr. Burks' testimony by offering the testimony of Mr. Hubley, a witness for the State. [289] The State maintains Appellant's contentions are not correct and the trial court properly admitted the testimony of Mr. Hubley. During the trial before Judge Fleming, the court allowed the State to ask Mr. Hubley four leading questions. [290] Mr. Hubley's testimony consisted mainly of his responses to those four questions asked by the State on direct examination. The four questions and Mr. Hubley's answers were: (1) Did [co-defendant] Anthony Wilson tell you at one point that he was inside the bathroom of the woman's [Ms. Couch's] home? ANSWER: Yes. (2) Did he later tell you that he stayed on the couch in the house and heard noises coming from the bathroom? ANSWER: Yes. (3) Later still did he tell you he wasn't even inside of her house? ANSWER: Yes. (4) Were the second and third things that [co-defendant] Anthony Wilson told you after he found out the police were wanting to talk to him about this case? ANSWER: Yes.[ [291] ] The ruling by the judge is not quite clear, but Judge Fleming stated [the four questions are] leading, but ... [the questions] will be allowed in order not to prejudice either side. I'm going to trust that the best interests of the particular defendants will restrict sufficiently cross-examination so as not to offend Bruton .... I'm not restricting the cross-examination. [292] The court advised counsel that if any potential problems arose during the trial, he would excuse the jury, listen to the questions of concern, and entertain an offer of proof as to what reference counsel intended to make regarding Mr. Hubley. However, Judge Fleming ultimately affirmed his ruling and allowed the four leading questions. Appellant objected to the State's questions and moved to exclude them. [293] Then, Co-defendant Wilson objected to the court's ruling allowing the State to ask Mr. Hubley the leading questions. [294] Later, Appellant objected to use of a redacted statement and moved for severance and mistrial. [295] The court denied both motions and stated that cross-examination of Mr. Hubley would not be limited except Co-defendant Wilson should adhere to the approved redacted version of the statement for cross-examination. [296] Properly argued at trial and on appeal, the issue quite simply would have been objection to the leading form of the four questions and objection to the inadmissible hearsay the questions presented. But this was not done. Appellant does not make a clear argument on the issue on appeal. Even assuming it was error to allow the leading questions, the error was harmless.