 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bottrell12/15/2000
self-defense, such evidence, if it existed, may have set the stage for showing that Hall was involved in a series of relationships in which he attacked the women, thus bolstering Bottrell's self-defense theory. See State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 833, 889 P.2d 929 (1995). Furthermore, even evidence that fits the exception because it is an inseparable part of the crime charged, is not admissible if it is unduly prejudicial. Lane, 125 Wn.2d at 834.
C. Evidence that Hall Regularly Wore No Pants
Bottrell argues that the trial court erred in not allowing evidence that Hall habitually did not wear pants in his house. Bottrell reasons that under ER 406, evidence that Hall habitually wore no pants was relevant to show that Hall intended to engage in sexual intercourse with Bottrell and to refute that Hall surprised Bottrell while she was committing a robbery.
ER 406 states:
Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
Habit has been defined as a ''regular response to a repeated specific situation so that doing the habitual act becomes semi-automatic.'' Norris v. State, 46 Wn. App. 822, 826, 733 P.2d 231 (1987) (quoting cmt., ER 406). Furthermore, '{c}aution is essential in dealing with habit evidence, because it verges on inadmissible evidence of character.' Norris, 46 Wn. App. at 826.
Here, Bottrell testified that Hall frequently walked around his house without wearing his pants. The trial court ruled that whether Hall was wearing pants or not was not relevant to the charges, particularly since the State was not raising an inference that Bottrell removed his pants for any reason. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
D. Conviction for Sex Offense
Finally, Bottrell argues that the trial court should have allowed evidence of Hall's prior conviction for indecent exposure because it relates to her claim of self-defense. Bottrell asserts that she knew of Hall's conviction and feared him because of the conviction, thus her reactions to him were reasonable. Bottrell also asserts that evidence of his conviction was necessary to allow her to testify as to his anger on the night of his death. The State contends that Hall's prior conviction for indecent exposure is irrelevant to Bottrell's perception that Hall intended to commit a felony or inflict death or great personal injury upon her. The State further contends that even if such evidence were relevant, it is too prejudicial. The State is correct.
Under ER 404(a), '{e}vidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion{.}' An exception is evidence of a pertinent trait of the victim of the crime offered by an accused. ER 404(a)(2). Here, Bottrell argues that evidence of Hall's indecent exposure conviction shows that Hall violently threatened her, leading to her actions of self-defense.
RCW 9A.16.050(1) defines when a homicide may be justifiable:
In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished{.}
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.
|
|