Opinion ID: 6321891
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pretrial Motion To Admit ER 404(b) Evidence

Text: Before trial, the State sought to admit evidence of uncharged sexual abuse of R.G.M. by Crossguns from July 2015 to August 2016. The State also sought to admit testimony from family members regarding these incidents. Crossguns opposed admission of the evidence, arguing that it was improper propensity evidence. The trial court concluded the probative value outweighed any risk of unfair prejudice and ruled the evidence was admissible under ER 404(b) to demonstrate Crossguns’s “intent, plan, motive, opportunity, absence of mistake or accident, lustful disposition toward [R.G.M.], and as res gestae in the case to show [R.G.M.]’s state of mind for her delayed disclosure.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 119. The court also concluded the evidence was admissible to prove the aggravators but stated “the main factor” for admitting the evidence was to prove Crossguns’s “lustful disposition toward[] [R.G.M.]” 1 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (July 16, 2019) at 227. The court issued a limiting instruction that directed the jury to consider this evidence only for the purposes of “intent, plan, motive, opportunity, absence of mistake or accident, lustful disposition toward [R.G.M.], [R.G.M.’s] state of mind for her 3 State v. Crossguns No. 99396-3 delayed disclosure of the alleged abuse, and/or whether the charged conduct was part of an ongoing pattern of sexual abuse and/or involved an abuse of trust or confidence.” CP at 93. The instruction also informed the jury, “You may not consider [this evidence] for any other purpose.” Id.