Opinion ID: 2630876
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Evidence of John Cox's consent to search the Suburban

Text: ¶ 39 Levy argues that the Court of Appeals erred by not reviewing the trial court's decision to admit evidence of the gun found in the Suburban. He had claimed at trial that the gun was inadmissible because it was based only on a consent form signed by Cox and the testimony of the officer who obtained Cox's consent. Levy argued that a second officer who participated in the search of the vehicle should have been called to corroborate Cox's consent, citing State v. Davis, 73 Wash.2d 271, 438 P.2d 185 (1968). Davis dealt with the State's failure to call a law enforcement officer at trial. Id. at 275, 438 P.2d 185. We held the officer was peculiarly available to the State and failure to call him raised an inference that his testimony would be unfavorable to the State. Id. at 276-77, 438 P.2d 185. ¶ 40 Levy is incorrect that the Court of Appeals did not consider this argument. The court concluded that Cox was not peculiarly available to the State, as required by Davis. State v. Levy, noted at 121 Wash.App. 1079, 2004 WL 1326813 at , 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1206, at -20. Regarding the second officer, the court merely stated that there was no reference to him in the record. [5] Id. The court concluded, however, that even if the officer was present during the search, there were also several other officers present, suggesting the additional testimony was cumulative. Id. Thus, even though the court did not find the three brief references to the officer in the record, it did specifically consider the value his testimony would have had, so this issue is without merit.