Court Opinion

ID: 3212708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-13 21:20:43.47635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:47.837149
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                                                                                      CO
                                      DIVISION ONE                                                    tlic-"-
                                                                                            er»       >rc
                                                                                                      —t_<

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                              No. 75033-0-1                             *"—       O-Tl
                                                                                                      -IT
                                                                                            —
                                                                                                          - >> -
                                                                                            CO        ^     ~yi r
                             Respondent,                                                               t/inv
                                                                                            r>»
                                                                                            cut        2E>'~
                v.                                UNPUBLISHED OPINION                           VJD    cSc-o
                                                                                                       —175 Wn. App. 912, 927, 308 P.3d 736 (2013). A trial court abuses its

discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.

Bradford, 175 Wn. App. at 927.

       "The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to

admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in

question is what its proponent claims." ER 901(a). This requirement is met" 'if

sufficient proof is introduced to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find in favor of

authentication or identification.'" Bradford, 175 Wn. App. at 928 (quoting State v.

Danielson, 37 Wn. App. 469, 471, 681 P.2d 260 (1984)). In making its determination as

to authentication, the trial court is not bound by the rules of evidence. State v. Williams,

136 Wn. App. 486, 500, 150 P.3d 111 (2007).

       The identity of a party to a telephone call may be established by direct or

circumstantial evidence. Danielson, 37 Wn. App. at 472. Alone, self-identification by

the person on the other end of the line is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of ER

901. Passovovv. Nordstrom, Inc., 52 Wn. App. 166, 171, 758 P.2d 524 (1988).

"However, courts routinely find a call to be authenticated when self-identification is

combined with virtually any circumstantial evidence." Passovov, 52 Wn. App. at 171.

Such circumstantial evidence may include the contents of the conversation itself.

Danielson, 37 Wn. App. at 471. For example, in Passovov, a telephone call was

properly authenticated when in addition to identifying herself as a Nordstrom employee,

the caller made the call in response to an earlier call and also demonstrated familiarity

with the facts of the incident. Passovov, 52 Wn. App. at 171. In State v. Deaver, 6 Wn.
No. 75033-0-1/5

App. 216, 218-19, 491 P.2d 1363 (1971), even though the recipient of a call did not

recognize the caller's voice, the telephone call was authenticated based on the caller's

self-identification and the content of the conversation.

       By way of illustration only and not by way of limitation, ER 901 provides

authentication or identification of telephone conversations conforming to the following

requirements:

       [B]y evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by
       the telephone company to a particular person or business, if (i) in the case
       of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person
       answering to be the one called.

ER901(b)(6)(i).

       The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Russell's

telephone conversations with Lieutenant Brenna and Deputy Hovda. During both

conversations, Russell identified himself. Additionally, the self-identification in both

conversations was combined with circumstantial evidence. In the conversation with

Lieutenant Brenna, the person who answered the call demonstrated familiarity with the

facts of the incident at Walmart. For example, he admitted putting the notes on

Redford's car and encountering Nichols. In the conversation with Deputy Hovda, the

person answering the call demonstrated awareness that his prior actions could result in

going to jail. The evidence also showed the telephone number Deputy Hovda called

was listed as Russell's number in the e-mails from Russell to Redford. The Thurston

County Sheriff's Office system also listed the telephone number as belonging to

Russell.
No. 75033-0-1/6

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

       Russell argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because

defense counsel stipulated to two prior convictions for violation of a no-contact order

instead of moving to bifurcate the trial so the jury would not hear evidence of the prior

convictions until after it decided the underlying charge. We disagree.

              To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
       make two showings: (1) defense counsel's representation was deficient,
       i.e., it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness based on
       consideration of all the circumstances; and (2) defense counsel's deficient
       representation prejudiced the defendant, Le., there is a reasonable
       probability that, except for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of
       the proceeding would have been different.

State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 334-35, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). If either element of

the test is not satisfied, the inquiry ends. State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 78, 917

P.2d 563 (1996).

       We engage in a strong presumption that counsel's representation was effective.
McFarland. 127 Wn.2d at 335. " 'When counsel's conduct can be characterized as

legitimate trial strategy or tactics, performance is not deficient.'" State v. Grier, 171
Wn.2d 17, 33, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011) (quoting State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 863, 215

P.3d 177 (2009)). We will not find ineffective assistance of counsel if the actions of
counsel go to trial tactics. Grier, 171 Wn.2d at 33. Counsel does not render ineffective
assistance by refraining from strategies that reasonably appear unlikely to succeed.

McFarland, 127 Wn.2d at 334 n.2.

       The fact that a defendant has at least two prior convictions for violating a no-

contact order is an element of the crime of felony violation of a no-contact order—the

offense Russell was charged with. See RCW 26.50.110(5). "[W]hen a prior conviction
No. 75033-0-1/7

is an element of the crime charged, it is not error to allow the jury to hear evidence on

that issue." State v. Roswell. 165 Wn.2d 186, 197, 196 P.3d 705 (2008). Further,

bifurcated trials are not favored. State v. Monschke. 133 Wn. App. 313, 335, 135 P.3d

966 (2006). Because, it is unlikely a motion to bifurcate would have been successful,

defense counsel's decision not to move to bifurcate did not fall below an objective

standard of reasonableness.

       Moreover, Russell was not prejudiced by his counsel's decision not to move to

bifurcate. When introducing evidence of a prior conviction, the trial court can reduce

any unnecessary prejudice where practical, such as by allowing a defendant to stipulate

to the prior conviction and instructing the jury as to the limited purpose for which it may

consider the prior conviction. Roswell, 165 Wn.2d at 198 n.6.

       Here, the trial court read the parties' stipulation to the jury and gave an

appropriate limiting instruction.

              The parties have agreed that certain facts are true. You must
       accept as true that the person before the Court who has been identified in
       the charging document as defendant, Victor Daniel Russell, was convicted
       on October 31st, 2013 of violation of no-contact, protection, or restraining
       order, domestic violence, in the State of Washington vs. Victor Russell in
       Thurston County Superior Court Cause Number 13-1-00529-1.
              You must also accept as true that the person before the Court who
       has been identified in the charging document as defendant Victor Daniel
       Russell was convicted on January 12th, 2011 of violation of post
       conviction no-contact order, domestic violence, in State of Washington vs.
       Victor Daniel Russell in Thurston County Superior Court Cause Number
       10-1-01556-0.
              This evidence has been admitted in this case for only a limited
       purpose. This evidence consists of the defendant's two prior convictions
       for violating a court order. This evidence may be considered by you only
       for the purpose of deciding whether the defendant has two prior
       convictions for violating a court order. You may not consider it for any
       other purpose. Any discussion of the evidence during your deliberations
       must be consistent with this limitation.
No. 75033-0-1/8

       We presume the jury follows the court's instructions. State v. Perez-Valdez, 172

Wn.2d 808, 818-19, 265 P.3d 853 (2011). Russell cannot show prejudice by defense

counsel's decision not to move to bifurcate the trial.

       Affirmed.

                                                           v-edO g,!
WE CONCUR: