Court Opinion

ID: 9559848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:36:38.452948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:48.342472
License: Public Domain

*298Morgan, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately to make three points:
1. The conversations related in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs of the majority opinion were not admissible to prove the facts asserted therein. ER 801(c). Accordingly, those conversations are not the facts of the case, and the majority should not be reciting them as such. The majority seems to be doing exactly what we instruct juries they cannot do—using, as proof of the facts of the case, out-of-court statements admitted solely to impeach a witness’ credibility.
2. The conversations related in the majority opinion were admissible—though only to impeach—after Jones testified from the witness stand that Newbern had shot her by accident. State v. Hancock, 109 Wn.2d 760, 748 P.2d 611 (1988); State v. Lavaris, 106 Wn.2d 340, 721 P.2d 515 (1986).
3. We are not asked to evaluate whether the evidence admitted to prove its truth, as opposed to evidence admitted only to impeach, is sufficient to support the verdict and judgment.
Review denied at 138 Wn.2d 1018 (1999).