Court Opinion

ID: 9566262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:35:38.035857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:34:24.991850
License: Public Domain

Forrest, J.
(concurring) — I fully concur in Judge Scholfield's opinion. I write separately to emphasize that in a trial where several counts are joined, it is the defendant's obligation to identify any evidence which, admissible on one count but not on another, may create a risk of prejudice. The court can then properly instruct the jury. As I understand it, that is exactly the message of the quote from State v. Bythrow2 at page 867 of the concurring opinion by Judge Pekelis.
WPIC 3.01 cannot operate as a limiting instruction unless the jury is told what evidence cannot be used for what purpose. Evidence does not come in labeled "count 1" or "count 2." We cannot expect a jury in deliberations to make fine evidentiary distinctions as to what evidence goes to what count without specific guidance. If protection against misapplication of the evidence by the jury is needed, it must be by specific instruction identifying the evidence in question.
Evaluating the risk of prejudice from any evidence not admissible on counts is central to the original decision to sever or join. Once the decision to join is made, there is no way to monitor the jury's use of the evidence in the course of deliberations. The legal rule should acknowledge the practical reality and permit the jury to use evidence as it sees fit absent a limiting instruction. In my view, the trial court properly responded to the jury's question.
Scholfield, J., concurs with Forrest, J.
Review denied at 117 Wn.2d 1003 (1991).

 114 Wn.2d 713, 790 P.2d 154 (1990).