State v. Smith
1982 Wash. LEXIS 1576, 97 Wash. 2d 856, 651 P.2d 207 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A witness's prior inconsistent statement may be admitted as substantive evidence under ER 801(d)(1)(i) if it was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury and the totality of the circumstances surrounding its making, including its purpose and formality, provides sufficient guarantees of reliability.
Facts:
- Rachael Conlin was severely assaulted in a motel room.
- At a hospital shortly after the assault, Conlin told a police officer that Nova Smith was her attacker.
- Later that day at the police station, Conlin wrote and signed a voluntary statement detailing the assault and identifying Smith as the perpetrator.
- Conlin signed the statement under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, before a notary public.
- On the same day as the assault, Conlin was chased by Smith and ran into her manager's apartment for help; Smith then forcibly took her car keys and left.
- At Smith's trial a month later, Conlin testified that another man, a Mr. Gomez, was her assailant and that Smith had actually come to her aid.
- Conlin admitted during her testimony that she had made the prior sworn statement to the police naming Smith.
- Conlin also testified that she had lived with Smith both before and after the assault.
Procedural Posture:
- Nova Smith was charged with assault in the second degree in a Washington trial court.
- At trial, the court admitted Rachael Conlin's prior sworn statement to police as substantive evidence.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Smith guilty.
- After the verdict, the trial judge granted Smith's motion for a new trial, reversing his prior ruling and concluding the statement was not admissible under ER 801(d)(1)(i).
- The State, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order granting a new trial.
- The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Washington for review.
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 Washington's Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(i) permit a witness's prior inconsistent statement to be admitted as substantive evidence when the statement was a written complaint made to police under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury?
Opinions:
Majority - Dimmick, J.
Yes. A witness's prior inconsistent statement given to police as a sworn, notarized written complaint qualifies as a statement given in an "other proceeding" under ER 801(d)(1)(i) when the circumstances of its making ensure reliability. The court determined that the legislative intent behind the rule was to ensure reliability through two main factors: (1) removing doubt that the prior statement was actually made, and (2) providing minimal guarantees of truthfulness, such as an oath and formal circumstances. Here, reliability was established because Conlin admitted making the statement, she wrote it in her own words, and she swore to its truth under penalty of perjury before a notary. Furthermore, the statement's purpose was to initiate a probable cause determination, a function similar to grand jury proceedings, which are explicitly covered by the rule. Therefore, under the totality of these circumstances, the jury was properly allowed to consider the statement as substantive evidence and determine which of Conlin's two conflicting stories was true.
Analysis:
This decision broadens the interpretation of "other proceeding" under ER 801(d)(1)(i) to include certain formalized police interrogations, moving beyond strictly judicial or grand jury settings. It establishes a fact-specific, reliability-focused test rather than a categorical rule. This holding is significant for prosecutors, particularly in cases involving witness intimidation or recantation (such as domestic violence), as it allows highly reliable, sworn statements made to police to be used as substantive evidence of guilt, even if the witness later changes their testimony in court.
