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

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence of Horyst's Drug Use

Text: Thomas argues that evidence showing Horyst was using drugs regularly at the time of the intercepted conversation he had with Adams was relevant and should not have been excluded. It is well settled in Washington that evidence of drug use is admissible to impeach the credibility of a witness if there is a showing that the witness was using or was influenced by the drugs at the time of the occurrence which is the subject of the testimony. State v. Russell, 125 Wash.2d 24, 83, 882 P.2d 747 (1994). When asked by the court, Thomas admitted to having [n]othing concrete in the way of evidence showing Horyst was under the influence of drugs the day he had the conversation with Adams. RP at 399. The trial court ruled that Thomas would not be allowed to question Horyst about his drug usage during the deposition but that it would reconsider the issue at trial if Thomas had more evidence then. Horyst did testify at trial and the record does not show, nor does Thomas allege, that he sought to introduce better evidence of Horyst's drug usage than he had during pretrial. Thomas has not pointed to any new evidence discovered since trial that indicates Horyst was using drugs on the day of or even during his conversation with Adams. Again, Thomas is raising a disingenuous argument on appeal. We find no abuse of discretion.