Court Opinion

ID: 9528533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:41:50.544036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:58.225733
License: Public Domain

Coleman, J., concurs.
Forrest, J. (concurring) — I agree with the majority that Dever has not properly preserved his claim of error as to the trial court's in limine ruling limiting his inquiry into the relationship between Fowler and a member of the prosecuting attorney's office. Since the matter will undoubtedly arise in the event of a retrial, I deem it appropriate to state my view as to the merits to forestall another appeal on this issue.
A crucial issue on liability is whether Fowler neutrally laid the facts before the prosecutor or whether he actively promoted immediate filing. Accordingly, the relationship between Fowler and the deputy prosecutor handling the matter is of vital importance, especially in view of the uncertainty as to the details of the filing. In my view it would be an abuse of discretion to grant a motion in fimine prohibiting testimony as to such relationship.
After modification, further reconsideration denied December 20, 1991.
Review denied at 118 Wn.2d 1028 (1992).