State Of Washington v. Gregory Lamont Hughes Simmons, Jr.
48576-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- In Aug. 2015 Lauren Lozada's Chevy was stolen; eyewitness Renee Brooks identified Gregory Simmons as the driver. Lozada reported parts of the car later were being sold online by a profile linked to Simmons.
- Lozada (over 16) and Simmons had a prior dating relationship that ended in Feb. 2015; during cross-examination Lozada described past episodes of coercion and physical abuse, including a forced trip to Las Vegas.
- Defense cross-examination tried to show a congenial post-breakup relationship (to undermine the domestic-violence designation and credibility); that questioning elicited testimony suggesting the Las Vegas trip might have been consensual.
- On redirect the State elicited testimony of prior domestic violence (cracked ribs, choking, beatings) to rebut defense implications; defense objected but the court allowed it as the defense had "opened the door."
- Jury convicted Simmons of theft of a motor vehicle with the domestic violence designation. The trial court ordered forfeiture of property and imposed mandatory LFOs totaling $800.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, held the domestic-violence designation was supported by sufficient evidence, concluded the defense opened the door to prior-act evidence, rejected prosecutorial-misconduct claims, vacated the forfeiture order, and upheld mandatory LFOs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for domestic-violence designation | Evidence shows Lozada (16+) and Simmons had a dating relationship; theft occurred against a household/family member | Designation unsupported (argued by implication) | Affirmed — dating relationship + theft sufficient for domestic-violence label |
| Charging decision / use of DV label | Charging as DV was proper; prosecutor discretion governs charging | DV label used to admit unfairly prejudicial prior-act evidence (relying on Gunderson, Ashley) | Rejected — no authority to overturn charging decision and cited cases inapplicable here |
| Admission of prior-act (domestic violence) evidence | Prior-act testimony was permissible to rebut defense theory after defense opened the door | Admission was irrelevant and highly prejudicial (ER 404(b) argument) | Court did not abuse discretion — defense opened the door by suggesting congenial post-breakup relationship and consent; State rebuttal was fair and limited |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (eliciting testimony / closing) | State legitimately rebutted defense theory; did not rely on prior acts in case-in-chief | Prosecutor elicited and exploited prior-act evidence and argued improperly | Waived (no timely objection); even if preserved, not improper — rebuttal was fair response to defense |
| Forfeiture order in judgment & sentence | State concedes trial court erred to the extent it ordered blanket forfeiture in the J&S | Forfeiture was improper and beyond court's authority | Remanded to strike the forfeiture condition from the judgment and sentence |
| Mandatory LFOs and ability to pay | LFOs imposed are statutorily mandatory; no ability-to-pay inquiry required for mandatory assessments | Trial court erred by not considering ability to pay | Affirmed — court may impose mandatory LFOs without ability-to-pay inquiry (Lundy) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gunderson, 181 Wn.2d 916 (Wash. 2014) (addresses limits on admitting prior-act evidence under ER 404(b))
- State v. Ashley, 186 Wn.2d 32 (Wash. 2016) (ER 404(b) principles and admissibility analysis)
- State v. Korum, 157 Wn.2d 614 (Wash. 2006) (a party who opens the door may allow admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence)
- State v. Ortega, 134 Wn. App. 617 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (open-door rule explained; appellate standard of review)
- State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438 (Wash. 2011) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct claims)
- State v. Rice, 159 Wn. App. 545 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (prosecutor's charging discretion)