Opinion ID: 2632445
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to compel the State to accept Cobabe's stipulation

Text: ¶ 99 Cobabe challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to compel the State to accept his stipulation that he wanted to meet with Whitlock without mentioning the fact that the purpose of the meeting was to purchase drugs. He argues that the purpose of the meeting had nothing to do with his attempt to remove the CD/DVD player and the reference to drugs inappropriately labeled him a drug user. ¶ 100 The State counters that the purpose of the meetings explained the urgency of [Cobabe's] behavior and ma[d]e sense of the events for the jury. (Cobabe) Suppl. Br. of Resp't at 3. It argues that the fact that drugs were involved helps to explain why Cobabe would take someone's CD player hostage. Id. at 5. The State notes that the evidence rules permit such evidence to prove motive or intent. In any event, the State argues that even if it was error, it was harmless. It points out that the jury did not hold Cobabe's character defects against him when it acquitted him on the firearm charge. ¶ 101 The trial court has discretion to determine whether evidence is relevant and an appellate court reviews the trial court's ruling for abuse of discretion. Vreen, 143 Wash.2d at 932, 26 P.3d 236. Evidence of other bad acts is not admissible to show that a person has a bad character, but it is admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. ER 404(b). ¶ 102 Here, Cobabe's intent in going to Whitlock's apartment to take the CD/DVD player was clearly at issue. It makes little sense that he would take the player just to ensure that Whitlock would pay him a visit unless he had some other compelling reason. The drug purchase provides that reason. Additionally, the fact that the jury was able to see past Cobabe's drug associations and acquit him on the firearm charge suggests that the reference to drugs, by itself, was not prejudicial. ¶ 103 We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Cobabe's motion to compel the State to accept his stipulation.