Opinion ID: 6328782
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lack of Criminal History

Text: The Court of Appeals also held that evidence of Arbogast’s lack of criminal history should have been admitted as evidence under ER 404(a)(1). Arbogast, 15 Wn. App. 2d at 875. The State assigned error to this conclusion but appears to concede the evidence is admissible. Amended Pet. for Review at 1, 11-12; Suppl. Br. of Pet’r at 16 (“The defendant could have admitted character evidence if he had a witness who could testify about his reputation for sexual propriety with children under ER 404(a)(1).”). Because we granted review based on the State’s petition, we address the issue. ER 404 generally prohibits evidence of a person’s character or trait for the purpose of proving an action in conformity therewith, and proscribes evidence of other crimes or bad acts to prove the defendant’s character and conduct in accordance with his or her character. ER 404(a), (b). Regarding character evidence, ER 404 allows for certain exemptions, most relevantly evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused or by the prosecution to rebut the same. ER 404(a)(1). ER 404(b) allows evidence of other crimes or wrongdoing for other purposes such as intent, among other things. 23 No. 99452-8 Predisposition is an inquiry into the intention of the defendant. State v. Swain, 10 Wn. App. 885, 890, 520 P.2d 950 (1974). The relevant inquiry for an entrapment defense is whether a fact finder could reasonably conclude from the evidence that the defendant had no predisposition to commit the crime until the intent was implanted in his or her mind by police and that the defendant was induced to commit the crime through fundamentally unfair efforts by law enforcement. State v. Enriquez, 45 Wn. App. 580, 585, 725 P.2d 1384 (1986). This is a “broad concept, and a broad swath of evidence, including aspects of the defendant’s character and criminal past, is relevant to proving predisposition.” United States v. McLaurin, 764 F.3d 372, 381 (4th Cir. 2014). In State v. Woods, a physician’s testimony and written psychosexual evaluations given to the defendant were excluded at trial. 117 Wn. App. 278, 279, 70 P.3d 976 (2003). The testimony and evaluation found no indication of sexual impulsivity and no predisposition to sexual attraction to children. Id. Though character evidence is generally inadmissible, a defendant may present evidence of a pertinent character trait. ER 404(a)(1). “Sexual morality” is such a pertinent trait in cases involving sexual offenses. State v. Griswold, 98 Wn. App. 817, 823, 991 P.2d 657 (2000). Thus, on appeal, Woods held that the lack of sexual impulsivity and predisposition evidence was relevant. See 117 Wn. App. at 279. In Lively, this court noted that the defendant had “no criminal record nor any prior involvement selling illegal narcotics” and that the defendant was not a target of prior drug investigations. 130 Wn.2d at 18 (emphasis added). Lively 24 No. 99452-8 took explicit notice of a defendant’s activities outside of their criminal record. 8 In the proper case, a defendant’s lack of criminal history may be admitted under ER 404(a)(1). 9 We affirm the Court of Appeals on this issue. 10