State of Washington v. Eduardo Chavez, 34334-1

Eduardo Chavez (nearly 17) was convicted of second-degree rape based on the victim A.S.'s incapacity after heavy drinking; Chavez's DNA was found on A.S.
Defense theory was that A.S. lied or had a reputation for untruthfulness; defense sought to elicit reputation testimony from S.B., a longtime acquaintance of A.S. who had attended some of the same schools.
On cross-examination defense counsel asked S.B. about A.S.'s reputation for truthfulness in the school community; the prosecutor objected and the court excluded the ER 608(a) reputation testimony for lack of foundational proof of a valid "community."
The trial court ruled the Land factors (frequency of contact, time known, role in community, number of people) had not been satisfied and prevented the specific reputation evidence from reaching the jury.
Chavez was convicted; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony. Judge Smoowd (dissent) would have reversed, arguing the foundation was adequately laid and exclusion was prejudicial.

Issue	Chavez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of ER 608(a) reputation evidence of accuser's honesty	Sufficient foundation laid by S.B.'s long acquaintance and knowledge of A.S.'s reputation in the school community; school can be a valid community	Foundation not established: ambiguity about who comprised the community, how well they knew A.S., recency, and whether testimony reflected reputation vs. personal opinion	Trial court acted within discretion under Land; exclusion not an abuse of discretion (conviction affirmed)
Harmless-error / constitutional impact of excluding credibility evidence	Exclusion was prejudicial because case turned on credibility; should be reviewed under constitutional harmless-error; reversal/remand warranted	Exclusion was proper evidentiary ruling and any error was not prejudicial	Majority: no reversible error; dissent: cannot say exclusion was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (would reverse)

State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412 (1985) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)
State v. Land, 121 Wn.2d 494 (1993) (foundation factors for admitting ER 608 reputation evidence and definition of community)
State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829 (1991) (five-element test for reputation evidence under ER 608)
State v. Hooker, 99 Wash. 661 (1918) (historic discussion of reputation vs. opinion evidence)
Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1948) (description of reputation testimony as hearsay-based summary of community views)
State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1 (1983) (importance of Sixth Amendment rights and credibility issues in sexual assault prosecutions)