City Of Tacoma v. Chevalier Lee
48792-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- On Jan 25, 2015, Chevalier Lee and his girlfriend, Danielle Spicer, were at Alice and Louis Gonzalez Hernandez’s home; an argument between Lee and Gonzalez Hernandez escalated into a physical altercation.
- Lee claimed he struck Gonzalez Hernandez in self-defense after Gonzalez Hernandez advanced toward him; witnesses described Lee approaching and swinging at Gonzalez Hernandez.
- Defense sought to admit Spicer’s testimony that Lee had seen Gonzalez Hernandez be "physical" with his wife four days earlier to show Lee’s knowledge of the victim’s violent tendencies and to support a claim of self-defense.
- The trial court excluded that proffered testimony (and sustained an unspecified objection when Lee testified he had reason to be scared), finding the evidence more prejudicial than probative; Lee was convicted by a jury.
- On discretionary review, Lee argued the exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense; the Court of Appeals reversed his conviction and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding testimony about the victim’s prior violent act violated Lee’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense | Exclusion was proper because the testimony was more prejudicial than probative and could "open the door" to Lee’s own prior misconduct | Evidence that Lee had seen the victim be violent was critical to show Lee’s subjective fear and the objective reasonableness of self-defense | Court held exclusion violated Lee’s right to present a defense; evidence was relevant and its probative value outweighed asserted prejudice |
| Whether prior-acts evidence was admissible under ER 404(b)/405(b) to show knowledge/state of mind | Argued exclusion reduced prejudice and prevented unfair opening of other bad-act evidence | Argued such prior acts are admissible to show the defendant’s knowledge and reason to fear the victim | Court held prior specific acts known to the defendant are admissible to show state of mind and reasonableness for self-defense |
| Whether the trial court conducted the required ER 404(b) analysis on the record | City contended trial court properly excluded evidence for prejudice | Lee contended no proper 404(b) analysis was made and exclusion lacked record support | Court noted trial court failed to perform the required on-the-record 404(b) analysis and erred in exclusion |
| Whether the error was harmless | City argued any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Lee argued the excluded evidence could have materially affected the jury’s self-defense finding | Court held error was of constitutional magnitude and not shown harmless; reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 187 Wn.2d 641, 389 P.3d 462 (addresses standard for reviewing exclusion of defense evidence and constitutional-error review)
- State v. Wanrow, 88 Wn.2d 221, 559 P.2d 548 (jury must consider all facts and circumstances known to defendant for self-defense)
- State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469, 932 P.2d 1237 (explains subjective/objective components of self-defense inquiry)
- State v. Foxhoven, 161 Wn.2d 168, 163 P.3d 786 (ER 404(b) four-step admissibility framework)
- State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713, 230 P.3d 576 (burden on State to show relevant evidence is so prejudicial it must be excluded)
- State v. Smith, 148 Wn.2d 122, 59 P.3d 74 (constitutional error harmlessness standard)