 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Washington v. Stumpf3/3/1992
se or connected to the offense at issue to be admissible.
The trial court has considerable discretion regarding the admissibility of both lay and expert testimony and its decisions will be upheld if not manifestly unreasonable or if not exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. E.g., Stoudamire, at 47.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the admission of lay testimony. There was no expert evidence that the defendant suffered from diminished capacity. Additionally, the offers of proof indicated the requisite foundational requirements could not be met. We therefore need not address the defendant's contention that even if the proffered
testimony were inadmissible, the State "opened the door" to its introduction.
To support a diminished capacity instruction, there must not only be substantial evidence of the mental disorder, but the evidence must also explain the connection between the disorder and the diminution of capacity. Griffin, at 418-19; Edmon, at 103-04. Since the only evidence as to the defendant's "command delusions" consisted of the defendant's testimony, the trial court's refusal to give a diminished capacity instruction was proper under Griffin.
Pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, the remaining contentions and the court's answers to those contentions, having no precedential value, will not be published.
Disposition
Holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in refusing to allow lay witnesses to testify regarding the defendant's diminished capacity, the court affirms the conviction, reverses the sentence, and remands the case for resentencing within the standard range.
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|