State Of Washington, V Israel T. Laureano
76730-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 24, 2017Background
- Israel Toribio-Laureano was tried for delivery of a controlled substance and possession with intent to deliver following a police "buy-bust" operation using informants Debra Mendez and Jose Mendez Lopez.
- Officers searched the informants and gave them prerecorded buy money, watched a meeting between Mendez Lopez and Toribio-Laureano, and immediately after the meeting Mendez Lopez gave officers a baggie of meth; Toribio-Laureano had the prerecorded money and meth in his car when arrested.
- Detective Humphrey described the buy-bust at trial and testified he heard a call in Spanish in which Mendez Lopez agreed to meet a source known as "Primo." Defense objected to that remark as hearsay.
- The trial court overruled the hearsay objection, denied a defense request for a missing witness instruction regarding the informants, and used a jury packet labeled "STATE'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS."
- The jury convicted Toribio-Laureano; on appeal he challenged (1) admission of alleged testimonial hearsay/confrontation clause violation, (2) denial of a missing witness instruction, (3) an improper judicial comment via the instruction cover caption, and (4) imposition of discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) without inquiry into ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Toribio-Laureano) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of informant statement about agreeing to meet (testimonial hearsay / Confrontation Clause) | Statement was testimonial hearsay; admission violated the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses | Statement was not offered for its truth but to explain the procedure; alternatively any error was harmless given untainted evidence | Court: Not hearsay as offered; even if testimonial, any Confrontation error was harmless given overwhelming untainted evidence — no reversal |
| Missing witness instruction for informants | Informants were peculiarly available to the State and their absence warranted an inference their testimony would be unfavorable | Informants were known to defendant (he could have called them), and they faced pending charges making them Fifth Amendment unavailable | Court: No abuse of discretion in refusing instruction; informants not peculiarly available and Fifth Amendment protection was reasonable |
| Judicial comment via jury packet caption "STATE'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS" | Caption implied judge favored the State — improper comment on evidence | Caption did not state disputed facts or convey judge's opinion; instructions themselves were legally correct | Court: Caption not an improper judicial comment; instructions acceptable as a whole |
| Imposition of discretionary LFOs without ability-to-pay inquiry | Trial court imposed discretionary LFOs without individualized inquiry, violating Blazina | State conceded no inquiry was made | Court: Reversed as to discretionary LFOs and remanded for resentencing with an individualized ability-to-pay inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation clause framework)
- State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910 (2007) (test for testimonial hearsay; standard of review)
- State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577 (2008) (missing witness doctrine elements)
- State v. Jackman, 156 Wn.2d 736 (2006) (prohibition on judicial comment in jury instructions)
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (requirement of individualized ability-to-pay inquiry before imposing discretionary LFOs)
- Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) (protections for witnesses invoking the Fifth Amendment)