 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bottrell12/15/2000
}he standard of review is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' State v. Rempel, 114 Wn.2d 77, 82, 785 P.2d 1134 (1990) (citing State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980)). 'A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.' State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are equally reliable. State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980).
There was sufficient evidence to prove that Bottrell committed felony murder. And Dr. Stanulis's excluded PTSD testimony would not have materially borne on Bottrell's intent to rob Hall.
A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
III. OTHER ALLEGED EVIDENTIAL ERRORS
A. Impeachment of Fox - Multiple Personality Disorder
Bottrell argues that the trial court erred in granting the State's motion in limine to prevent the impeachment of Angela Fox (the inmate who testified that Bottrell told her she was going to get everything from Hall including his car) by using evidence of Fox's multiple personality disorder (MPD). Bottrell contends that Fox was not competent under ER 601 to be a witness because of her MPD. And by not allowing the jury to hear the evidence on MPD, Bottrell argues that the trial court removed the determination of Fox's credibility from the jury. The State argues that there was no evidence that Fox's MPD affected her ability to give a correct account of what she heard and saw regarding Bottrell's statements while in custody at the Clark County Jail. The State is correct.
Competency is determined by ER 601 which states: 'Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided by statute or by court rule.' Under RCW 5.60.020, '{e}very person of sound mind and discretion, except as hereinafter provided, may be a witness in any action, or proceeding.' Only those of 'unsound mind,' or those intoxicated at the time of their testimony, or those 'who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts, respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly' are incompetent to testify. RCW 5.60.050.
In general, the test for competency is whether or not the witness understands the nature of the oath and is capable of giving a correct account of what she saw or heard. State v. Mines, 35 Wn. App. 932, 936, 671 P.2d 273 (1983), review denied, 101 Wn.2d 1010 (1984). It is a question of fact whether the witness, at the time of her in court statement, is describing an event that she had the capacity to accurately perceive, recall, and relate. State v. Karpenski, 94 Wn. App. 80, 101, 971 P.2d 553 (1999).
Here, Bottrell made an offer of proof regarding Fox's MPD. Fox testified as to what each different personality does and that having multiple personalities does not affect her recollection. Furthermore, it was her personality 'Angela Fox' who testified and it was 'Angela Fox' who conversed with Bottrell in jail. Fox testified that the only time a different personality took over with her not being able to control it 'was when I was with my ex-husband and he was beatin' the shit outta me.' Report of Proceedings
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.
|
|