Opinion ID: 1145330
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: semen-stained towel

Text: The victim testified that after petitioner had anal intercourse with her he would clean himself with a towel and she would do the same. Mrs. Ferguson testified as follows about towels which she found in the home: Q. Mary, when you and your husband used to have intercourse, was there anything unusual about the way that took place or what happened afterwards or anything? A. Well, he always insisted on using a towel all the time to clean himself up with afterwards and to clean me up with, ... ... Q. Mary, did you ever on the occasions when you came back from school notice anything unusual about the house? A. Yes, I did. I'd come home and find a towel wadded up and thrown on the floor in the living room that hadn't been there before, and I'd just pick it up and throw it in the washing machine. It seemed unusual to me. I noticed something was on it that looked like semen, but I can't be positive. Q. Do you remember  maybe you said and I just didn't catch it  where these towels might have been? A. Right on the floor in front of the couch, in front of the couch that I would sleep on, in front of the couch that he would sleep on. Petitioner contends that this testimony was improper because Mary Ferguson does not possess the requisite scientific skills to identify a semen stain and thus was not competent to testify. Mary Ferguson did not testify that the stains were in fact semen stains. She testified that they appeared to be semen stains based upon her prior experience. This testimony is clearly within the scope of ER 701, which allows opinion evidence by lay witnesses. ER 701 provides: If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in allowing Mary Ferguson to give her opinion as to the nature of the stains on the towels. In conclusion, all of petitioner's assignments of error are without merit. The error committed by the trial court, being de minimis, did not prejudice the outcome of petitioner's trial. Accordingly, we affirm petitioner's conviction. WILLIAMS, C.J., STAFFORD, BRACHTENBACH, DOLLIVER, and PEARSON, JJ., and CUNNINGHAM, J. Pro Tem., concur. DORE, J. (dissenting) Defendant Frank Ferguson was convicted by a Walla Walla jury of the crime of indecent liberties (RCW 9A.44.100(1)). The information alleged that defendant knowingly caused his 10-year-old stepdaughter to have sexual contact with him sometime between September 1979 and February 1980. Prior to trial, Ferguson filed a motion in limine to exclude nude photographs of himself, his stepdaughter, and his infant son, taken 7 years prior to the alleged incidents. In addition, he moved to suppress the testimony of his wife, Mary, regarding an alleged attempt on Ferguson's part to have his stepdaughter perform oral sodomy on his person at the time the photographs were taken. The trial court denied Ferguson's motions. During the trial, caseworker Dave Williams testified that the victim's story had been extremely consistent throughout the entire investigation of the case. The stepdaughter's schoolteacher, Kathleen L. Emmert, over objection, was allowed to testify that she and the victim had a discussion about sexual advances toward her and that the discussion concerned her father. The school psychologist testified as to the stepdaughter's subnormal intellectual capacity and the emotional problems she had been experiencing at school. Both the schoolteacher and the victim herself testified as to her propensity to lying and/or misstating the truth. The victim, however, said she was much improved in lying and that what she testified about concerning her stepfather was true. Ferguson assigns error to the introduction of the following evidence: 1. Nude photographs of the defendant and the victim taken 7 years before the alleged incident; 2. Teacher Kathleen Emmert's testimony regarding the stepdaughter's statement that her stepfather was the culprit; 3. Other testimony of Emmert regarding truthfulness of the stepdaughter; 4. Testimony of caseworker Dave Williams regarding the consistency of the stepdaughter's testimony; 5. Testimony by defendant's wife regarding sex acts which defendant allegedly performed when these photographs were taken.