 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bottrell12/15/2000
>
Evidence offered in support of self-defense must still be relevant. ER 402. Here, Bottrell has not demonstrated that evidence of indecent exposure is relevant to her acting in self-defense because she feared rape or great bodily harm. And evidence of past sexual crimes may be highly prejudicial. It was the reasonableness of Bottrell's response to Hall's acts that was at issue, not Hall's past crimes. See State v. Bell, 60 Wn. App. 561, 566, 805 P.2d 815 (1991). Further, Bottrell was able to testify regarding Hall's desire to 'buy an automatic weapon and blow them all away,' thereby establishing her fear of him. Report of Proceedings at 486.
E. Nude Photos
Bottrell does not assign error to the exclusion of nude photos of Hall although she does list two issues concerning the photos in her 'Issues Pertaining to Assignment of Error.' Bottrell provides no argument or authority to support any issue of the nude photos. Without argument or authority, we need not consider the issue. Smith v. King, 106 Wn.2d 443, 451-52, 722 P.2d 796 (1986).
F. Motion for New Trial Based Upon Cumulative Errors
Denial of a motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Balisok, 123 Wn.2d 114, 117, 866 P.2d 631 (1994). Cumulative errors may entitle a defendant to a new trial when the errors produced a trial that was fundamentally unfair. In re Personal Restraint of Lord, 123 Wn.2d 296, 332, 868 P.2d 835 (1994). We find no error apart from Dr. Stanulis's testimony. Cumulative error does not exist in this case.
IV. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Bottrell argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the charges which she brought at the conclusion of the State's case and in denying her motion for arrest of judgment based on insufficient evidence in support of either the first degree felony murder or the second degree murder conviction.
Here, Bottrell moved to dismiss the charges of first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder, after the State rested. Bottrell argued that there was no evidence of premeditation and that there was no evidence that the homicide was committed in furtherance of a robbery. The trial court denied both motions. Bottrell also moved for arrest of judgment pursuant to CrR 7.4, arguing that there was insufficient proof of intent to commit a robbery and absence of self-defense.
Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it permits any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). Because there was sufficient evidence, the trial court did not err in denying any of these motions.
A. First Degree Premeditated Murder and Second Degree Murder
When the State rested there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to conclude premeditation and intent existed. Johnson, Peccia, and Detective Schanaker all testified as to the conflict between Bottrell and Hall. During this conflict Bottrell withdrew, took the scissors, cut the phone cord, and then put it around Hall's neck while he lay on the floor. Bottrell climbed on his back and pulled on the cord for three to five minutes. This evidence was also sufficient for the conviction of murder in the second degree, i.e. 'With the intent to cause the death of any person but without premeditation, he causes the death of such person{.}' RCW 9A.32.050.
B. First Degree Felony Murder
We have previously in this opinion held that there was sufficient evidence
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|