Opinion ID: 1163403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 35

Heading: Details of Juvenile Convictions.

Text: Brett argues the prosecutor's cross examination of three defense mitigation witnesses violated due process by bringing out details of his juvenile convictions. He asserts the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its rebuttal value. See Bartholomew II, at 642-43. [47] Rebuttal evidence offered by the prosecution will be admitted if it is relevant to a matter raised in mitigation by defendant and the rebuttal value of the evidence outweighs the prejudicial effect .... Bartholomew II, 101 Wn.2d at 643 (quoting Bartholomew I, at 197-98). In State v. Lord, supra , the court adopted the balancing test set forth in ER 403 to determine whether prosecution rebuttal evidence is admissible in the penalty phase. Lord, 117 Wn.2d at 891. Under this standard, `[a]lthough relevant, [rebuttal] evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ...'. Lord, 117 Wn.2d at 891 (quoting ER 403). The court analogized this situation to the evidence rules concerning character evidence which allow a defendant's character witness to be cross-examined regarding personal knowledge of specific incidents of misconduct. Lord, 117 Wn.2d at 891. A character witness may not only be asked whether he has heard this or that about the defendant, but he may also be asked Do you know this or that about the defendant. Lord, 117 Wn.2d at 891-92 (quoting 5 Karl B. Tegland, Wash. Prac., Evidence § 125, at 450 (3d ed. 1989)). The court concluded, defense witnesses may be cross-examined concerning anything relevant to a matter raised in mitigation by the defendant, subject to the balancing test. Lord, 117 Wn.2d at 892. Applying this standard, the Lord court upheld the cross examination of a defense mitigation witness regarding the details of Lord's prior misconduct after that witness had testified that Lord was a `good boy'. Lord, 117 Wn.2d at 893-94. In this case, the State's cross examination was relevant to rebut matters raised by the defense, and the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Sandra Youngen, the program administrator with the Division of Juvenile Rehabilitation for the State of Washington at Maple Lane School testified on direct examination as follows: Q: Based on all of your experiences with James Brett and this was over a period of years, you're aware that he has been involved in the taking of another person's life? A: I am. Q: When you were provided with that information, did you have any reaction? Did it surprise you? A: Shocked me. Q: Based on all your experiences with James, did you think he would ever have been capable of doing that? A: No. Not taking someone's life, no. Report of Proceedings vol. 16, at 26. On cross examination, the prosecutor elicited from Youngen that she was aware that as a result of an assault on a staff member at Echo Glen Children's Center that Brett was convicted of kidnapping in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and escape in the first degree. Then, the prosecutor queried: Q: And [were you aware] that he [Brett] had snuck up on a staff counselor from behind, placed a tightly wound towel around her mouth and then moved the towel to her throat and strangled her with the towel? Were you aware of that? [Defense objection overruled.] .... Q: And that she was bound with electrical cord prior to Mr. Brett escaping? A: I do recall something about her being bound, yes. Report of Proceedings vol 16, at 28-29. Youngen then testified that her reaction of shock at Brett's conviction was based only upon his behavior during his stay at Maple Lane, not on his prior behavior. On redirect, the defense counsel brought up the Echo Glen incident again by asking Youngen whether other youth were involved. Brett also alleges the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine Jeffrey Johnson and Dr. James Owens regarding the details of the Echo Glen assault. Johnson was the associate superintendent at Maple Lane while Brett was at that facility. On direct, Johnson testified that Brett was not a threatening person. On cross, the prosecution asked Johnson if he was aware that Brett had previously been convicted of kidnapping, assault, and escape for assaulting a staff worker at Echo Glen and whether he knew the details of the assault. Johnson responded that he knew about the kidnapping but did not know about the strangulation attempt until being subpoenaed. Dr. Owens was the medical director at Echo Glen Children's Center during the relevant time period. On direct, Dr. Owens testified he knew about the assault on a staff worker but still felt [v]ery much surprised about Brett's conviction. Report of Proceedings vol. 17, at 163. He also testified that he took Brett home to spend a day with his wife and two sons. On cross examination, the prosecutor asked if Owens took Brett home before or after the assault. He also asked Owens if it was correct that the staff worker was strangled with a towel. Owens replied that he understood that was how Brett got control of her and her keys. Report of Proceedings vol. 17, at 166. The evidence regarding the details of the incident at Echo Glen were relevant to rebut each mitigation witness' testimony that Brett was not a threatening person and/or that it was surprising that he took a person's life. Brett has not shown the probative value of this rebuttal evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The jury was aware Brett had been convicted of 15 crimes since the age of 12. It was also aware of the violent nature of Mr. Milosevich's murder. Under the totality of the circumstances presented to the jury, ... no improper evidence was admitted. Lord, 117 Wn.2d at 895. Unless the prosecution is permitted to rebut defendant's evidence, the jury may well approach the crucial sentencing decision with an incomplete picture. Lord, 117 Wn.2d at 894.