Opinion ID: 2582487
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Safarik's Testimony

Text: ¶ 59 Under ER 702, the court may permit a witness qualified as an expert to provide an opinion regarding scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge if such testimony will assist the trier of fact. The two key criteria for admission of expert testimony are a qualified witness and helpful testimony. State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879, 890, 846 P.2d 502 (1993), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Buckner, 133 Wash.2d 63, 941 P.2d 667 (1997). We review a trial court's admission of expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. State v. Russell, 125 Wash.2d 24, 69, 882 P.2d 747 (1994); State v. Swan, 114 Wash.2d 613, 655, 790 P.2d 610 (1990); see also Walker v. Bangs, 92 Wash.2d 854, 858, 601 P.2d 1279 (1979) (stating that, [i]f the reasons for admitting or excluding the opinion evidence are `fairly debatable,' the trial court's exercise of discretion will not be reversed on appeal). ¶ 60 The trial court found that Safarik was a qualified expert in the fields of crime scene investigation, analysis, and linkage assessment and that his testimony [would] be helpful to the jury in understanding crime scene evidence, signature and linkage assessment. [22] Safarik's testimony was relevant to showing the identity of Mercer's and Ellis's murderer and to establishing the aggravating circumstance of common scheme or plan. [23] First, Yates suggests that Safarik's testimony should not have been admitted to show the identity of Mercer's and Ellis's murderer since Yates had not placed his identity at issue. [24] However, as the State countered, because the Yates case did proceed to trial, the State was bound to establish every element of first degree murder, including the fact that Yates killed Mercer and Ellis. See CP at 4099, 4108, Jury Instructions 13, 22. Second, Yates suggests that Safarik's testimony amounted to an improper opinion as to Yates's guilt, given Yates's convictions for the Spokane murders and Safarik's testimony that the crime scene evidence linked the Spokane killer to the murders of Mercer and Ellis. But as this court stated in Russell, if an expert's testimony is admitted to show identity, the court will not rule inadmissible the inference to be drawn from such evidence. 125 Wash.2d at 72-73, 882 P.2d 747. Third, Yates claims that Safarik's testimony amounted to improper propensity evidence; however, under ER 403, the trial court balanced the probative value of the Spokane evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice and ruled that a limiting instruction would cure the only potential unfair prejudicial effect  that the jury might incorrectly consider the evidence as proof of defendant's propensity to commit the Pierce County murders. CP at 3072. Pursuant to ER 105, the trial court gave the following limiting instruction: [E]vidence will be introduced by the State on the subject of the Spokane murders for the limited purpose of attempting to prove a common scheme or plan and for purposes of attempting to prove motive, opportunity, identity, preparation, or premeditation. You must not consider this evidence for any other purpose in this case, which involves the deaths of two people in Pierce County. 65 VRP at 6839 (emphasis added). This court has often recognized that [t]he jury is presumed to follow the instructions of the court. State v. Grisby, 97 Wash.2d 493, 499, 647 P.2d 6 (1982). Yates has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Safarik's expert testimony. ¶ 61 Even if we were to determine that the admission of Safarik's testimony amounted to an abuse of discretion, we would conclude that the trial court's evidentiary decision was harmless. Where evidence is improperly admitted, the trial court's error is harmless if the evidence is of minor significance in reference to the overall, overwhelming evidence as a whole. State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wash.2d 389, 403, 945 P.2d 1120 (1997). The State presented overwhelming evidence that Yates murdered Mercer and Ellis. DNA analysis showed that Mercer's blood was on Yates's jacket, that his hair was on her skirt, and that his semen was identified on vaginal and anal swabs. Forensic analysis established that Mercer was killed with the same gun used in four of Yates's Spokane murders, and records found at his home placed him in the Tacoma area at the time of Mercer's murder. Similarly, the State presented evidence that Ellis's blood was found in Yates's Ford van, that she was killed with the same gun Yates used to kill two of the Spokane victims, and that Yates was in the Tacoma area at the time Ellis was murdered. Just as, independent of Safarik's testimony, the State presented overwhelming evidence of Yates's guilt, the State presented abundant evidence, independent of Safarik's testimony, that Yates's murders of Mercer and Ellis were a product of the same criminal plan identifiable in the Spokane murders. In light of the State's evidence, any error in admitting Safarik's testimony was harmless.