Opinion ID: 2581317
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Evidence of Tape Recorded Statement of Perjurer Richard Prevost

Text: Petitioner gave a taped statement to police officers which was played to the jury. [63] He stated in part, I didn't see nothing that went on, whatever. He talking about some knife. I don't know nothing about no knife or anything but I know, you know, it's instinct you know. [64] On the tape Detective Eugene Ramirez interjected, Just a second. You're making some reference about a knife. Are you referring to what you heard in a tape recorded statement that we played to you? Petitioner stated, Yeah, I did. See, I didn't know. [65] Petitioner sought to introduce evidence that before he gave his statement to Detective Ramirez, the detective played tape recorded statements from Mr. Lopez and Mr. Prevost which contained false claims that Petitioner killed Mr. Jones. [66] The trial court allowed Petitioner to refer to the two persons who made the false statements but did not allow him to mention their names. [67] Petitioner Everybodytalksabout argues the trial court erroneously excluded evidence that during his interview with police detectives he heard a tape of false statements made by Mr. Prevost during his interview with them. [68] He contends the jury was entitled to know the circumstances under which his statement was made to the officers and that Respondent has not established a compelling interest in excluding that evidence. [69] Respondent State of Washington asserts the statement of Mr. Prevost was not relevant to explain Petitioner's statement and that there is nothing in the record to establish that Mr. Prevost's statement was in fact played to Petitioner by the officers. [70] The Court of Appeals concluded Petitioner has not shown he actually heard Mr. Prevost's statement. [71] The court indicated the evidence was not necessary because the jury already knew from the testimony of Detective Ramirez that witnesses had implicated Petitioner. [72] The trial court and Court of Appeals were correct. Evidence of the taped statement of Mr. Prevost had little relevance; and any relevance it may have had was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. [73]