Opinion ID: 2600024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exclusion of Proffered Defense Testimony of the Defendant's Brother and Limitation of Cross-Examination

Text: ¶ 18 Aguirre next argues that the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of his brother, J. Aguirre, as impeachment on a collateral matter, and by limiting his ability to cross-examine the victim regarding her alleged relationship with another man. [7] Questions of relevancy and the admissibility of testimonial evidence are within the discretion of the trial court, and we review them only for manifest abuse of discretion. In re Welfare of Shope, 23 Wash.App. 567, 569, 596 P.2d 1361 (1979). An erroneous ruling with respect to such questions requires reversal only if there is a reasonable possibility that the testimony would have changed the outcome of trial. State v. Fankhouser, 133 Wash.App. 689, 695, 138 P.3d 140 (2006). Regarding the second assertion, we review a trial court's decision to limit cross-examination of a witness for impeachment purposes for abuse of discretion. Roper v. Mabry, 15 Wash.App. 819, 822-23, 551 P.2d 1381 (1976); State v. Temple, 5 Wash.App. 1, 4-5, 485 P.2d 93 (1971). ¶ 19 The trial court did not manifestly abuse its discretion when it excluded J. Aguirre's testimony. It is well settled that neither party may impeach a witness on a collateral issue; that is, on facts not directly relevant to the trial issue. Fankhouser, 133 Wash.App. at 693, 138 P.3d 140 (citing State v. Descoteaux, 94 Wash.2d 31, 37, 614 P.2d 179 (1980), overruled on other grounds by State v. Danforth, 97 Wash.2d 255, 257 n. 1, 643 P.2d 882 (1982)). Facts are relevant if they have a tendency to make the existence of any consequential fact more or less probable. ER 401. ¶ 20 J. Aguirre would have testified that, after the assault and rape, the victim tried to contact him on a social networking website in an effort to get in touch with the defendant. III VRP (Feb. 14, 2007) at 588. Defense counsel argued that this testimony was relevant because it would impeach the victim's testimony that she had not contacted J. Aguirre through the website, thereby undermining her credibility. Id. at 588-89. However, the victim herself had already testified that she contacted the defendant during that time frame, and the question relevant to the trial issue of the defendant's guilt was whether the victim contacted the defendant after the rape and assault, not whether the victim contacted J. Aguirre online. Accordingly, the proffered testimony was not directly relevant to a trial issue and the trial court did not err by excluding it as impeachment on a collateral issue. ¶ 21 The trial court also did not err by limiting Aguirre's cross-examination of the victim regarding the details of her alleged relationship with another man. The rape shield statute clearly limits the ability of either party to introduce at trial evidence of the past sexual behavior of the complaining witness. RCW 9A.44.020(2). [8] Although Aguirre does have a constitutional right to present a defense, the scope of that right does not extend to the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence. State v. Otis, 151 Wash.App. 572, 578, 213 P.3d 613 (2009) (citing State v. Thomas, 123 Wash.App. 771, 778, 98 P.3d 1258 (2004)). The admissibility of evidence under the rape shield statute, in turn, is within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Hudlow, 99 Wash.2d 1, 17, 659 P.2d 514 (1983). ¶ 22 Again, it was well within the trial court's sound discretion to conclude that the testimony that the defense sought to elicit during cross-examination was inadmissible under RCW 9A.44.020(2) as evidence of the victim's past sexual behavior. Aguirre's constitutional right to present a defense was satisfied by the trial court's decision to permit him to testify as to his belief that the victim had been seeing another man during their relationship. IV VRP (Feb. 15, 2007) at 746, 754. Thus, the trial court did not err when it limited Aguirre's ability to cross-examine the victim about her alleged relationship with another man. We affirm the Court of Appeals opinion rejecting Aguirre's claim on both evidentiary issues.