State Of Washington, Res. v. Adan Manuel Cortes-gonzalez, App.
73593-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- On a summer afternoon at the Snoqualmie River, an altercation occurred after Cortes-Gonzalez believed a kayak struck his wife; Michael Noonan was injured.
- Bystanders testified the aggressor approached Noonan, threw the first punch, held him down in the water, struck him, and kicked him; one witness identified Cortes-Gonzalez in court.
- The State played a witness video taken ~40 feet away showing a dark-haired man in khaki shorts and a maroon shirt with a distinctive logo; the video did not show the fight’s start.
- The State also introduced a close-up photograph taken at the scene showing Cortes-Gonzalez in khaki shorts and a maroon shirt, hands behind his back, with a person who appeared to be an armed officer nearby.
- Cortes-Gonzalez objected to the photograph as unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant; the jury convicted him of second- and fourth-degree assault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of photograph (ER 401/403) | Photo relevant to identity; State must prove identity and victims did not identify defendant | Photo unfairly prejudicial: shows arrest-like context (hands behind back, ambulance, apparent armed officer) and not probative of identity | Court upheld admission — trial court did not manifestly abuse discretion; probative value for identity outweighed risk of unfair prejudice |
| Harmless error analysis | N/A (State defending verdict) | Even if admission was erroneous, any error was not likely to affect outcome given other evidence (witnesses, video) | Error, if any, harmless because other admissible evidence firmly supported conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Finch v. State, 137 Wn.2d 792 (discretionary standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Stenson v. State, 132 Wn.2d 668 (ER 403 balancing; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Salas v. Hi‑Tech Erectors, 168 Wn.2d 664 (definition of manifestly unreasonable)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Duncan, 167 Wn.2d 398 (clarifying "manifestly unreasonable")
- City of Auburn v. Hedlund, 165 Wn.2d 645 (unfair prejudice concept)
- Rivers v. State, 129 Wn.2d 697 (admission of booking/identifying photos; relevance and minimal prejudice)
- Everybodytalksabout v. State, 145 Wn.2d 456 (harmless-error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Bourgeois v. State, 133 Wn.2d 389 (measuring prejudice against admissible evidence)