State v. Day
11 P. 3d 304, 142 Wash. 2d 1 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Evidence Rule 404(a)(1), a defendant's character trait for sobriety is a 'pertinent' and admissible trait when offered to negate an element of a charged offense, such as 'intent to use' paraphernalia, or to support an affirmative defense, such as 'unwitting possession' of a controlled substance.
Facts:
- Doug R. Day picked up his truck from an auto repair shop where it had been undergoing major modifications for approximately four months.
- An employee who had worked on Day's truck was fired from the shop for suspected drug use outside of work.
- The shop owner, Don Simmonson, was aware of a prior incident where a customer found drug paraphernalia in their car after it had been serviced at his shop.
- A couple of days after retrieving his truck, on November 4, 1996, Day was stopped by a police officer for driving around a police barrier.
- During a search of the truck, the officer found a small amount of marijuana and a marijuana pipe inside the center armrest console.
- Day immediately told the officer that the items were not his, he had never seen them before, and he had just gotten his truck back from the repair shop.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Kennewick charged Doug R. Day in Benton County District Court (a trial court of limited jurisdiction) with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
- At trial, the court excluded defense testimony regarding Day's reputation for sobriety.
- A jury convicted Day on both possession charges but acquitted him of negligent driving.
- Day, as appellant, appealed to the Benton County Superior Court (an appellate court for district court decisions), which reversed the conviction.
- The City of Kennewick, as appellant, sought discretionary review from the Court of Appeals, Division Three (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court's decision, reinstating Day's convictions.
- Day, as petitioner, petitioned the Washington Supreme Court (the state's highest court) for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of a defendant's reputation for sobriety when the defendant is charged with drug paraphernalia possession and marijuana possession, and asserts the affirmative defense of 'unwitting possession'?
Opinions:
Majority - Madsen, J.
Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion by excluding such evidence. A defendant's reputation for sobriety is a 'pertinent' character trait under ER 404(a)(1) when it is relevant to an element of the crime or an affirmative defense. For the possession of drug paraphernalia charge, which requires the City to prove 'intent to use,' evidence of sobriety is pertinent because a jury could find that a person with a reputation for sobriety is less likely to have intended to use the paraphernalia. For the strict liability marijuana possession charge, the defense of 'unwitting possession' makes the defendant's knowledge a central issue. Character evidence supporting a lack of knowledge, such as a reputation for sobriety, is therefore pertinent to this affirmative defense, and its exclusion was an abuse of discretion because the trial court based its decision on an erroneous view of the law.
Concurring - Talmadge, J.
Yes, the exclusion of this evidence was an abuse of discretion, but only because precedent from State v. Eakins compels this result. This decision continues a negative trend of expanding the admissibility of character evidence, which distracts the jury from the core issue of culpability. Furthermore, the judicially-created 'unwitting possession' defense is a form of 'judicial legislation' that improperly imports an intent element into strict liability crimes, contrary to the legislature's intent. This ruling will further complicate criminal trials by forcing them to focus on collateral issues of reputation rather than the defendant's actual conduct.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that a defendant's character can become a central issue in a strict liability drug possession case through the assertion of an affirmative defense. By defining 'pertinent' character evidence under ER 404(a)(1) to include traits that support a defense like 'unwitting possession,' the court expands the scope of admissible evidence for defendants. This precedent empowers defendants to introduce reputation evidence that would otherwise be irrelevant, shifting the trial's focus to include the defendant's state of mind and credibility. It reinforces the significance of the 'unwitting possession' defense as a tool to mitigate the harshness of strict liability drug laws in Washington.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Day