Opinion ID: 2627702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Powell Preserved His Challenge to the Drug Use Evidence

Text: ¶ 27 It is clear from the record that Powell's counsel adequately stated his objection, and the issue was fully considered by the trial court. On the first day of trial, the State announced it would offer ER 404(b) testimony of Amber Williams and Greg Kincaid that touched on Powell's use of methamphetamine. Powell's counsel stated: I don't want the word drug used anywhere in this trial. It's not a trial about drugs and I'd prefermy problem is you say methamphetamines and drugs, he's going to jail. I don't want that to happen. Iit's not a trial about drugs. I want to keep that out in particular. 1 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Feb. 6, 2006) at 12. The trial court made a limited ruling, subject to a later offer of proof: With regard to the allegations involving drug use, they shouldn't be mentioned in opening statement. I guess we're going to need to have aan offer of proof from the witnesses as to what it is that they are willing to testify to and the basis of their knowledge before I allow them to discuss potential drug use by theby the Defendant. Id. at 19. Ultimately, the court disallowed testimony from Amber Williams regarding Powell's drug use, concluding the prejudice of this evidence, which did not relate to the specific drug use on the morning of the incident, outweighed any probative value. Id. at 28-29. ¶ 28 As to Greg Kincaid, the trial court ruled his testimony was admissible to show Powell's mental state. Id. at 40-42. During the State's offer of proof, defense counsel challenged Kincaid's credibility, but the trial court properly kept the focus on the relative probative value and prejudice of the evidence, noting: Well, first of all, neither of these issues arguments has anything to do with the admissibility of the evidence. In determining whether the evidence is admissible, it isdoesn't make any difference whether I personally believe the witness or not. So, arguing his credibility to me is not something that I need to have considered. What I have to determine is whether the probative value of the testimony outweighs its potential prejudicial effect. Id. at 40. The court advised counsel he would admit Kincaid's testimony and also allow defense counsel to question Kincaid's credibility. Id. at 41. The trial court stated: The prohibitive [sic] value of that is pretty strong, in my opinion, because apparently, that's the issue that we have here, is whether he intended to just go over and talk to her or whether he intended to commit some other crime. I don't haven't heard any argument that its prejudicial effect is outweighed by its prohibitive [sic] value and I wouldn't find that it was in this point. So I'm going to admit the testimony, as indicated by the witness. Id. [1] ¶ 29 As this review of the record confirms, the ER 404(b) issue was raised and fully considered in the trial court. The reasons for requiring an adequate objection are served here: the trial court was presented with the issue now before us and given an opportunity to rule on it. While the majority is correct that Powell's counsel made a misguided credibility challenge to Kincaid's testimony, this was not the sole basis of his objection. Rather, at the beginning of the colloquy over the admission of ER 404(b) evidence Powell's counsel plainly objected to the admission of any drug evidence based on its potential for prejudice. Id. at 12. Even granting the majority's point that Powell's objection was not clear with respect to Kincaid's testimony, the nature of the objection was clearly understoodand acted uponby the trial court. See ER 103(a)(1); State v. Black, 109 Wash.2d 336, 340, 745 P.2d 12 (1987) (noting ER 103(a)(1) allows appellate review when grounds for objection, though not specifically lodged at trial, are readily apparent from circumstances); 5 KARL B. TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: EVIDENCE LAW AND PRACTICE § 103.11, at 58-59 (5th ed.2007) (even if no specific objection was made, under ER 103(a) the propriety of the ruling will be examined on appeal if the specific basis for the objection was `apparent from the context.' Id. (quoting ER 103(a)(1))). [2] We should reach the merits of Powell's claim.