State v. Arredondo - 188 Wash. 2d 244, 394 P.3d 348 (2017)

Rule:

In order for a trial court to admit evidence of past wrongs, Wash. R. Evid. 404(b) requires a trial court to (1) find by a preponderance of the evidence that the misconduct occurred, (2) identify the permissible purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced, (3) determine whether the evidence is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged, and (4) weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect. This analysis must be conducted on the record, and if the evidence is admitted, a limiting instruction is required.

Facts:

Defendant Fabian Arredondo, a member of the Norteño gang, was arrested for the drive-by shooting of a member of Sureño gang. Prior to the trial, defendant made a motion in limine to bar evidence the State sought to introduce pursuant to ER 404(b) of defendant’s involvement in a previous drive-by shooting with suspected Norteño/Sureño gang ties. Following offers of proof, the trial court ruled that the State could present testimony relating to the prior incident for non-character purposes. According to the trial court, the evidence had probative value that outweighs the prejudicial effect. Defendant also made a motion in limine for the trial court to determine what scope limitations would apply to his cross-examination of a jailhouse witness regarding the latter’s previous mental health diagnoses and past drug and alcohol use. The court barred inquiries during cross-examination regarding the witness’ mental health or past substance abuse because he did not appear currently impaired, and evidence associated with previous limitations would be irrelevant, not probative, and highly prejudicial. The jury returned a verdict on all charges. Defendant appealed.

Issue:

1. Was it error for the trial court to allow the State to present testimony that linked defendant to a prior drive-by shooting?
2. Was it error for the trial court to bar inquiries regarding the witness’ mental health on cross-examination?

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to admit evidence linking defendant to a prior uncharged drive-by shooting under Wash. R. Evid. 404(b) because the State presented significant evidence unequivocally tying defendant's vehicle to the prior shooting, the evidence was relevant for demonstrating defendant's motive and intent, and the court reasonably determined that the probative value of the evidence was particularly high and outweighed its prejudicial effect. Moreover, the Court held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to bar defendant from cross-examining the jailhouse witness about the witness's mental state and past alcohol and drug use, thus defendant's right to confront witnesses under U.S. Const. amend. VI and Wash. Const. art. I, § 22 was not violated. Accordingly, defendant’s convictions were affirmed.