Opinion ID: 1172674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: testimony of jan m. gray and brieanna c. west

Text: (5) Whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Ms. Jan M. Gray and Ms. Brieanna C. West, who had noncriminal encounters with Appellant in California and Washington. Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error by admitting the testimony of Ms. Jan M. Gray and Ms. Brieanna C. West during the guilt phase of his trial. He claims the court did not identify the relevance of this evidence and also did not balance its probative value against its prejudicial effect as required by ER 404(b). During the trial the defense moved to exclude Ms. West's and Ms. Gray's testimony as irrelevant. It also argued their testimony was prejudicial because it might lead the jury to conclude Appellant was stalking Ms. West as another potential victim. [110] The court concluded the testimony of Ms. West and Ms. Gray did not constitute ER 404(b) character evidence because Appellant's contact with both women involved no crime or misconduct. [111] It also stated that: The State will not be allowed to argue that Ms. West or Ms. Gray were other potential victims that were simply waiting to happen ... but I think that all of this information goes to setting the ground work, setting the scene ... in front of the jury so that they can look at all the evidence before having to make the very difficult decisions in this case. [112] Following the testimony of both Ms. West and Ms. Gray, the court orally instructed the jury there was no indication or allegation that Appellant intended to harm either of the two women. The court also instructed the jury that the testimony was presented simply to place Mr. Brown's actions and activities in some sort of logical context. You are not to consider the testimony for any other reason. [113] The jury was similarly instructed at the conclusion of the guilt phase of the trial. [114] The admission of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. [115] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony of Ms. Gray and Ms. West. The testimony was relevant because it established background information on Appellant's trip to Seattle where he committed the crimes in this case. He was not prejudiced by the testimony of Ms. Gray and Ms. West because his contact with both women involved no crime or misconduct. Thus, it did not come within the purview of ER 404(b). [116] Any possibility the jury might have speculated that Appellant was stalking Ms. West or Ms. Gray was obviated by the trial court's limiting instructions. [117]