Opinion ID: 2350797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Exclusion of the defendant's statement

Text: ¶ 39 During preliminary proceedings, the defendant's attorney started to say there [are] some statements that Mr. Thompson made and the court interrupted, Are those the ones that are purportedly contained in the affidavit of probable cause? 1 VRP at 18. Counsel agreed, advised the court that there had been no CrR 3.5 hearing, and then counsel began to say so as I understand it. Id. At this point, the prosecuting attorney interrupted and advised the court he did not intend to use the statement other than for purposes of cross-examination. The parties then stipulated that Thompson's statement was voluntary and that it was admissible for purposes of possible impeachment of the defendant if he testified. Expressly basing its decision on the parties' agreed stipulation, the court granted the motion to limit admissibility to this purpose. There is no evidence suggesting that the statement would have been ruled inadmissible at a CrR 3.5 hearing, such as for lack of Miranda warnings. [5] Indeed, the stipulation on the statement's voluntariness and use supports the opposite conclusion.