Court Opinion

ID: 9962186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 21:19:11.927004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:58.535679
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

 STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                                                   No. 84553-5-I
               Respondent,
                                                   DIVISION ONE
               v.
                                                   UNPUBLISHED OPINION
 JAMES JEROME KENNEDY,

               Appellant.

       BIRK, J. — James Kennedy appeals his conviction, arguing the trial court

erroneously excluded evidence of the complaining witness’s prior misdemeanor

convictions in violation of ER 609 and his right to present a defense. Because we

conclude that any error did not materially affect the outcome, we affirm.

                                          I

       On March 1, 2019, Tracy Jones was in a trailer that belonged to his

neighbor, Kim Roper, when Kennedy entered and started talking about a bicycle

that Jones had purchased from Kennedy. Jones had previously agreed to buy a

bicycle from Kennedy for $100.       The terms of the agreement are disputed.

According to Jones, the two agreed on “a deal where it was $100, and I would give

him $50 up front, you known, and hang on to the bike. And then when I verified

that it was a real, you know, bike, then I’d pay him the other $50 and the deal would

be done.” Jones testified that if the bicycle turned out to be a “knockoff,” he would

return the bicycle, and Kennedy would give back the $50. Jones later concluded
No. 84553-5-I/2

the bicycle was not genuine, and testified he told Kennedy he wished to rescind

the transaction.

       According to Kennedy, “It was $100 for a bicycle that I gave [Jones]. And

he gave me $50 down and was going to give me $50 at the end of the week. That

was it. There was no—nothing talked about, any calling the manufacturer ever or

anything like that.” Kennedy testified Jones came up with excuses when asked

about the remaining balance. Kennedy testified he asked Jones to return the

bicycle so he could sell it to somebody else, and give Jones back his $50.

However, Jones would not give the bicycle back until Kennedy returned his $50.

       Roper testified that in the trailer, Kennedy and Jones “were disagreeing

about a price on [the bicycle] or something. One wanted the money back, and they

were just, they were disagreeing with each other, and the conversation started to

get a little bit heated.” Roper testified that Jones was sitting in the back corner of

the trailer during the conversation, when Kennedy “just kind of jumped on [Jones]

and started hitting him. And he had something small in his hand.” Roper saw

Kennedy hit Jones in the head using the same hand that was holding the object

about two or three times. Kennedy and Jones “wrestled around that way for a little

bit, and managed to get to their feet, and tumbled out the door pretty much

together.”

       Jones testified Kennedy entered Roper’s trailer and asked him where the

bicycle was, to which Jones replied asking where his $50 was. Jones stated that

he looked up and saw “a pipe sliding out of the coat into [Kennedy’s] hand. And

                                          2
No. 84553-5-I/3

then he hit me with it. And I just buried my face in between my knees and put my

hands over like this . . . . And he just kept hitting me.” Jones testified Kennedy hit

him with the pipe 20 to 30 times before Jones was able to push the door open and

crawl between Kennedy’s legs out the door. There was one step in the entryway

to Roper’s trailer that Jones “kind of crawled and rolled out of it.” Jones testified

he ran towards his fifth wheel and called 911. Jones sustained right zygomatic

arch fractures and scalp bruising.

       Kennedy testified that inside Roper’s trailer, he asked Jones “for the $50.

And then we got in a tussle, and he went out the door. And I walked out the door,

he swung at me with the jack handle, and then he took off toward his trailer.”

Kennedy stated he did not recall hitting Jones, but stated the two engaged in a

mutual “wrestling match.” The State charged Kennedy with second degree assault

with a deadly weapon.

       The State filed a pretrial motion to exclude evidence of any witness’s “prior

bad acts” without an offer of proof. Kennedy provided the State three certified prior

convictions for Jones: a third degree theft conviction, and two fourth degree assault

convictions. At argument, Kennedy stated Jones had two additional third degree

theft convictions for which Kennedy’s counsel did not have the judgment and

sentences, and represented that the convictions were included in the State’s prior

discovery responses. The State responded expressing uncertainty about which

cases Kennedy was referring to and requested the case numbers to look up the

two missing theft convictions. The State argued Kennedy needed the judgment

                                          3
No. 84553-5-I/4

and sentence for the convictions to be able to impeach Jones. Kennedy stated

“unless the State’s disputing the convictions that it gave me about their witnesses

and their legitimacy, I do think that I can bring those up as [ER] 609 convictions

without having the particular Judgment and Sentences.” The State argued that

without the judgment and sentence, “should [Jones] deny having those two theft in

the third degree convictions, [Kennedy] has to accept that.” The trial court ruled,

       I will allow for the parties to introduce one prior theft in the third
       degree conviction for purposes of [ER] 609, but I’m not going to allow
       multiple prior convictions for a misdemeanor theft charge to show
       dishonesty to a testifying witness.
               So the one prior conviction, the parties can choose which one
       they would want. Usually it would be the most recent that they can
       prove up, but we would get sidetracked if we go into a history of, you
       know, somebody’s been convicted of three or four different theft in
       the third degrees in the last ten years.
               That’s not informative to the jury, in my opinion. I think it’s
       cumulative. Showing that a person has been convicted once
       satisfies the requirement and the ability to impeach, at least for this
       kind of case, on this kind of issue.
               So that’s for all witnesses on both sides. So if there are
       multiple theft convictions for a particular witness, I would ask the
       parties to decide which one they can prove or they are comfortable
       with or that they agree to use and one will be allowed.

Kennedy objected and noted he may have further briefing. At trial, both Jones and

Kennedy testified they had a prior misdemeanor theft conviction.

       The jury acquitted Kennedy of second degree assault and the deadly

weapon enhancement, and convicted Kennedy of third degree assault. The trial

court sentenced Kennedy to 80 hours of community service. Kennedy appeals.

                                         4
No. 84553-5-I/5

                                         II

      Kennedy argues the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of Jones’s

prior misdemeanor theft convictions in violation of ER 609. We conclude that any

error was harmless.

      We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. State v. King, 75

Wn. App. 899, 910 n.5, 878 P.2d 466 (1994). A trial court abuses its discretion “if

its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or

untenable reasons.” In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 46-47, 940 P.2d

1362 (1997).   Evidence of prior convictions may be admissible to attack the

credibility of a witness, including a defendant in a criminal case, under ER 609.

State v. Rivers, 129 Wn.2d 697, 704-05, 921 P.2d 495 (1996). ER 609(a) states,

      For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness in a criminal
      or civil case, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime
      shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public
      record during examination of the witness but only if the crime (1) was
      punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the
      law under which the witness was convicted, and the court determines
      that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs the
      prejudice to the party against whom the evidence is offered, or (2)
      involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the
      punishment.

“[C]rimes of theft involve dishonesty and are per se admissible for impeachment

purposes under ER 609(a)(2). State v. Ray, 116 Wn.2d 531, 545, 806 P.2d 1220

(1991), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Crossguns, 199 Wn.2d 282, 505

P.3d 529 (2022).

      The State argues the trial court was within its discretion to limit questioning

to one misdemeanor theft conviction because Kennedy lacked documentation of

                                         5
No. 84553-5-I/6

the convictions. However, ER 609(a) states a prior conviction shall be admitted

either if “elicited from a witness” or “established by public record during

examination of the witness.” In Ray, the court overruled its treatment of theft

crimes in State v. Burton, 101 Wn.2d 1, 676 P.2d 975 (1984), in which, Ray

explained, the trial court “admitted evidence of defendant’s prior convictions for

petit larceny and shoplifting.” Ray, 116 Wn.2d at 544. Ray approved the reasoning

of the lead opinion in State v. Brown, 113 Wn.2d 520, 782 P.2d 1013, 787 P.2d

906 (1989). Ray, 116 Wn.2d at 544-45. That opinion concluded, “all three theft

convictions were automatically admissible as crimes involving dishonesty.” Brown,

113 Wn.2d at 545. Even though Kennedy would not have been able to prove the

admissible prior theft convictions if Jones denied them, the trial court denied

Kennedy the opportunity to elicit the convictions from Jones through cross-

examination.   However, any error in disallowing this cross-examination was

harmless.

      An    erroneous    ruling   under   ER   609(a)   is   reviewed   under   the

nonconstitutional harmless error standard. Rivers, 129 Wn.2d at 706. A ruling

under ER 609 is not reversible error “ ‘unless, within reasonable probabilities, had

the error not occurred, the outcome of the trial would have been materially

affected.’ ” State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780, 725 P.2d 951 (1986) (quoting

State v. Cunningham, 93 Wn.2d 823, 831, 613 P.2d 1139 (1980)). Here, there is

not a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different

absent the error.

                                          6
No. 84553-5-I/7

       Even if two additional prior theft convictions of Jones had been before the

jury, the outcome of the trial would have been the same based on the other

evidence before the jury. Jones testified Kennedy hit him with a pipe numerous

times before he was able to exit the trailer. Roper identified Kennedy as the

aggressor, testifying Kennedy “just kind of jumped on [Jones] and started hitting

him. And he had something small in his hand.” Roper testified he saw Kennedy

hit Jones in the head using the same hand that was holding the object about two

or three times. Jones’s injuries, right zygomatic arch fractures and scalp bruising,

were consistent with Roper’s and Jones’s testimony. The outcome of the trial was

not materially affected by excluding the additional ER 609(a) impeachment

evidence, and therefore any error in its exclusion was harmless.

                                          III

       Kennedy argues the exclusion of Jones’s prior convictions violated

Kennedy’s constitutional right to present a defense. We disagree.

       In determining whether a trial court erred in excluding evidence in violation

of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, we engage in a “two-

step review process.” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 797, 453 P.3d 696 (2019).

This court first reviews “the trial court’s individual evidentiary rulings for an abuse

of discretion.” Id. at 797-98. Where a “ ‘trial court abused its discretion in making

an evidentiary ruling, and the ruling was prejudicial to the defendant,’ ” our inquiry

ends. State v. Jennings, 199 Wn.2d 53, 59, 502 P.3d 1255 (2022) (quoting with

approval State v. Jennings, 14 Wn. App. 2d 779, 800-01, 474 P.3d 599 (2020),

                                          7
No. 84553-5-I/8

(Melnick, J., concurring), affirmed in part, 199 Wn.2d 53)). However, where “ ‘the

abuse of discretion constituted harmless error,’ ” id. at 59 (quoting Jennings, 14

Wn. App. 2d at 800-01 (2020)), or where a court’s evidentiary rulings do not

constitute abuse of discretion, we then “consider[] de novo whether the exclusion

of evidence violated the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense,” id.

at 58.

         A criminal defendant’s right to present a defense is guaranteed by both the

federal and state constitutions. U.S. CONST. amend. VI; W ASH. CONST. art. I, § 22.

However, the Constitution permits judges to “ ‘exclude evidence that is

repetitive . . . , only marginally relevant or poses an undue risk of harassment,

prejudice, [or] confusion of the issues.’ ” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319,

326-27, 126 S. Ct. 1727, 164 L. Ed. 2d 503 (2006) (alterations in original) (internal

quotation marks omitted) (quoting Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-90, 106

S. Ct. 2142, 90 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1986)). There is “a distinction between evidence

that merely bolsters credibility and evidence that is necessary to present a

defense.” Jennings, 199 Wn.2d at 66-67. If the evidence is relevant, we must

weigh the defendant’s right to produce relevant evidence against the State’s

interest in limiting the prejudicial effects of that evidence to determine if excluding

the evidence violates the defendant’s constitutional rights. State v. Hudlow, 99

Wn.2d 1, 16, 659 P.2d 514 (1983); State v. Orn, 197 Wn.2d 343, 353, 482 P.3d

913 (2021).

                                          8
No. 84553-5-I/9

      As stated above, any error in the exclusion of the convictions was harmless.

In State v. Young, 27 Wn. App. 2d 461, 473, 532 P.3d 629 (2023), this court

declined to apply the constitutional harmless error standard, stating, “It cannot be

the case that any defendant who identifies an erroneous exclusion of relevant

evidence that is harmless under the nonconstitutional standard can—by doing no

more than asserting a constitutional claim—impose on the State the heightened

burden of proving constitutional error.” Instead, the court applied a materiality

standard to determine whether a violation of the right to present a defense

occurred. Id. at 474-75. The court stated,

      “The proper standard of materiality must reflect our overriding
      concern with the justice of the finding of guilt . . . . This means that
      the omission must be evaluated in the context of the entire record. If
      there is no reasonable doubt about guilt whether or not the additional
      evidence is considered, there is no justification for a new trial. On
      the other hand, if the verdict is already of questionable validity,
      additional evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient
      to create a reasonable doubt.”

Young, 27 Wn. App. 2d at 474 (quoting United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458

U.S. 858, 868, 102 S. Ct. 3440, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1193 (1982)). In Young, the court

found there was no reasonable likelihood that Young’s testimony to a self-serving

opinion that he was driving safely would have changed the outcome, where the

defense was able to present and argue the facts on which Young’s opinion was

based. Id. at 478.

      Here too, there is no reasonable likelihood that admitting additional prior

convictions would have changed the outcome. Kennedy was able to present

evidence of one of Jones’s prior theft convictions. Any error in excluding the

                                         9
No. 84553-5-I/10

additional theft convictions did not affect Kennedy’s ability to argue that Jones was

physically aggressive and that Kenney acted in self-defense.

                                          III

       Because we do not conclude that Kennedy waived his objection to the

court’s exclusion of two prior theft convictions of Jones, it is not necessary to reach

his argument that waiver would constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

       Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

                                          10