State v. Lough
889 P.2d 487, 1995 Wash. LEXIS 132, 125 Wash. 2d 847 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible under ER 404(b) to prove a common plan or scheme when the defendant committed markedly similar acts of misconduct against similar victims under similar circumstances, provided such evidence is proven by a preponderance, relevant, and its probative value clearly outweighs its prejudicial effect.
Facts:
- Lynn Roderick Lough, a paramedic, met P.A., the complaining witness, while teaching an emergency medical training class at her workplace.
- On July 22, 1988, Lough and P.A. made a date to meet at her home to watch a rented video.
- P.A. testified that Lough mixed her a drink, and shortly after beginning to drink it, she felt dizzy and very disoriented, with confused memory, later recalling her sweatpants being pulled down and Lough's genitals near her face, and then waking up nude from the waist down with Lough gone.
- Lough denied drugging or assaulting P.A., testifying they had consensual sexual intercourse after several drinks.
- Separately, four other women (M., D., K., and P.), who had been in relationships with Lough at various times between 1978 and 1988, testified that he had surreptitiously given them drugs in drinks or medication.
- These women recounted that after consuming the substances, they experienced dizziness, unconsciousness, or disorientation, and subsequently woke to find themselves sexually assaulted, often with anal or vaginal bleeding, and that Lough either denied the incidents or warned them against reporting.
- P.A. did not officially report the 1988 incident to the police at that time but expressed concern to friends and sought advice from a friend who was a police officer.
- In 1990, P.A. contacted the police and reported the 1988 incident after reading a newspaper article about a King County paramedic being investigated for drugging and raping several women.
Procedural Posture:
- Lynn Roderick Lough was charged with attempted second degree rape, indecent liberties, and first degree burglary in connection with the incident involving P.A.
- Prior to the beginning of trial, Lough moved to exclude testimony concerning his alleged druggings and rapes of four other women.
- The trial court held a pretrial hearing and ruled that the evidence regarding the four other women was admissible for the purpose of showing a common scheme or plan to drug and sexually abuse women.
- A jury convicted Lough on all counts charged in connection with the incident involving P.A., and he was sentenced to an exceptional sentence.
- Lough appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, contending that the trial court committed error by admitting the testimony of the four other women and challenging the length of his sentence.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed Lough's convictions, finding the evidence of his prior misconduct admissible under ER 404(b) for the purpose of proving a common plan or scheme, and also upheld the exceptional sentence.
- The Supreme Court of Washington accepted review to consider when evidence is admissible under ER 404(b) for the purpose of proving a common plan or scheme.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was evidence that Lynn Roderick Lough had previously drugged and raped four other women, while in relationships with them, admissible in this case for the purpose of showing a common plan or scheme under ER 404(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Andersen, J.
Yes, evidence that Lynn Roderick Lough had previously drugged and raped four other women in similar circumstances was admissible to show a common plan or scheme under ER 404(b). The court affirmed that ER 404(b) prohibits the admission of prior bad acts to prove a defendant's character or propensity to commit a crime but allows such evidence for other specific purposes, including proving a 'common plan or scheme.' The court clarified that a common plan or scheme can be established by showing that the defendant committed 'markedly similar acts of misconduct against similar victims under similar circumstances,' rejecting the defense's argument requiring a causal connection or a single, overarching 'grand design.' In Lough's case, the highly similar pattern of drugging women in personal relationships to render them unconscious or disoriented before sexually assaulting them was deemed highly probative of a deliberate plan, not merely character. This evidence was particularly necessary given P.A.'s diminished memory due to the drug. The trial court correctly applied the four-part test for ER 404(b) evidence: ensuring the prior acts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence, admitted for the proper purpose of showing a common plan, relevant to an element of the crime or a defense, and that their probative value clearly outweighed any prejudicial effect. Furthermore, the trial court appropriately excluded less similar prior acts and provided repeated limiting instructions to the jury.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the interpretation of the 'common plan or scheme' exception under ER 404(b) in Washington state, explicitly allowing for the admission of evidence demonstrating a pattern of 'signature' crimes even without a direct causal link between the prior acts and the charged offense. The ruling clarifies the criteria for admitting such evidence, emphasizing the similarity of the acts, victims, and circumstances as key to proving a common design. This precedent is particularly impactful in cases of sexual assault where victims' memory or credibility might be challenged, as it provides a robust mechanism to corroborate accounts and establish that a defendant's actions were part of a deliberate, recurring methodology rather than an isolated event or mistake.
