Opinion ID: 1357103
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: use of affidavit

Text: The majority opinion states that: Some of the factors considered by this court in determining that probable cause for the arrest existed, were attested to in this affidavit [of Detectives Sprinkle and Waitt] without contradiction by petitioner, but were not established in the record of the trial court proceedings. (Italics mine.) I do not believe that the permissible scope of judicial inquiry in habeas corpus allows the consideration of an ex parte affidavit that has not been invited by an allegation of the petitioner that can be said to have opened the door. If the door has been opened by allegations of petitioner which are dehors the record, an answering statement under oath indicates to us the evidence that would be produced upon a factual hearing. If the door has not been opened by allegations of petitioner, the affidavit becomes nothing more than an attempt of the state to bolster an otherwise weak case which has been attacked by habeas corpus. As I read In re Somday v. Rhay, 67 Wn.2d 180, 406 P.2d 931 (1965), it is not to the contrary and cannot be said to stand for the broad proposition for which the majority cites it. Two affidavits were involved in Somday. There was no objection to one which fixed the location of a highway on patented land; the other was proper since it was made in response to an allegation made by petitioner regarding facts outside the record. In the instant case, the affidavit is an attempt to supplement the trial record. The dangers inherent in the consideration of such an affidavit are well-illustrated by the instant affidavit, which was submitted 5 1/2 years after the trial. Memories tend to become weaker rather than stronger with the passage of time. The majority opinion states that: Petitioner objects to our consideration of this affidavit, arguing that to do so would violate petitioner's right of confrontation and cross-examination, which right is essential to due process of law as required by the Sixth Amendment and made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. To my mind, to point out that habeas corpus is a civil proceeding is no answer to petitioner's contention that the affidavit invades his constitutional rights. The availability of a procedure to regain liberty lost through criminal process cannot be made contingent upon a choice of labels. Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 6 L.Ed.2d 39, 81 Sup. Ct. 895 (1961). Although the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution may be limited to criminal proceedings, the concept of due process is not. I do not believe that consideration of the affidavit signed by Detectives Sprinkle and Waitt was consistent with due process of law. Accordingly, I feel that the majority's expansion of the scope of habeas corpus review is not only fundamentally unfair but will create unnecessarily complicated problems in future habeas corpus proceedings.