Opinion ID: 2629208
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony Regarding Geist as a Boss

Text: Thomas contends it was error to allow Natasha Anthony, one of Geist's employees, to testify during the guilt phase as to the type of boss Geist was and that it deprived him of a fair trial. Thomas's objection to this testimony as irrelevant was overruled. The State argues that such evidence was relevant because the State was trying to explain Geist's role as an employer since this was a murder for payroll money. The State contends that her testimony answers the jury's question of defendant's possible motive ( e.g. was Richard Geist perceived as a poor boss). Resp. to Pro Se Supplemental Br. at 7. At the close of the State's examination of Anthony, it asked, [w]hat sort of boss was Richard Geist? RP at 4318. Anthony responded that Geist was a really good boss, reasonable and a nice guy. RP at 4318. Thomas is probably correct that the relevancy of this information is questionable, although it arguably does clarify that Thomas's motive for killing Geist was not likely to have been because Geist was an unsavory employer. Even if irrelevant, however, we need not reverse Thomas's convictions on that basis. We will not reverse due to an error in admitting evidence that does not result in prejudice to the defendant. State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wash.2d 389, 403, 945 P.2d 1120 (1997). Where the error is from violation of an evidentiary rule rather than a constitutional mandate, we do not apply the more stringent `harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. Id. Instead, we apply the rule that error is not prejudicial unless, within reasonable probabilities, the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected had the error not occurred. State v. Tharp, 96 Wash.2d 591, 599, 637 P.2d 961 (1981). The improper admission of evidence constitutes harmless error if the evidence is of minor significance in reference to the overall, overwhelming evidence as a whole. Bourgeois, 133 Wash.2d at 403, 945 P.2d 1120. Thomas has not made a convincing argument that Anthony's comment was so prejudicial that, within reasonable probabilities, the outcome of his trial would have been different had Anthony not been allowed to answer the State's question. Given the total evidence, any error in allowing these comments would be of minor significance to the outcome here.