State Of Washington v. Ivory Butler
198 Wash. App. 484
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim N.C., age 14, met 22-year-old Ivory Butler; Butler arranged for her to meet men for sex at a motel and collected the proceeds.
- Police found N.C. in a motel room after an undercover sting; disposable phone, condoms, and a knife were recovered; N.C. testified Butler supplied these items.
- Evidence tying Butler to the scheme: text messages between Butler's phone and the disposable phone, jail phone calls, Backpage escort ads listing Butler's phone number, and the undercover detective’s arranged date.
- State provided Backpage business records and a certification from the records custodian months before trial; admitted at trial as Exhibits 3–5 over Butler’s objection alleging deficient notice under RCW 10.96.030.
- During part of the victim’s testimony a second jail officer briefly sat in the courtroom; Butler moved for a mistrial alleging prejudice. Jury convicted Butler of promoting commercial sexual abuse of a minor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Backpage business records under RCW 10.96.030 (notice requirement) | State: records and custodian certification were produced months earlier, giving fair opportunity to challenge | Butler: State failed to give the separate written notice required by RCW 10.96.030(3) and so exhibits were inadmissible | Court: Lack of formal written notice caused no prejudice because records and certification were provided months in advance, the State offered custodian testimony and interview, and defense declined continuance; alternatively any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence |
| Presence of second jail officer during victim’s testimony (due process/fair trial) | State: officer’s brief, unobtrusive presence was a routine security measure and did not prejudice the jury | Butler: additional officer signaled to jurors that defendant was dangerous and undermined presumption of innocence | Court: No due process violation — officer was not conspicuously close, did not obstruct view or attract attention, and the court gave a limiting instruction about routine shift changes |
| Appellate costs | State: appellate costs normally awarded to prevailing party | Butler: requests no costs due to indigency | Court: Affirmed conviction; trial-court indigency finding stands unless State shows significant post-trial change in finances and may move for costs if so |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244 (1995) (standard for abuse of discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (presumption of innocence principle and trial fairness)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986) (security personnel in courtroom evaluated case-by-case; no presumption of prejudice)
- State v. Jaime, 168 Wn.2d 857 (2010) (jury trial in a jailhouse courtroom can be inherently prejudicial)
- State v. Ralph G., 90 Wn. App. 16 (1998) (admissibility standards for evidence reviewed)
- State v. Hughes, 56 Wn. App. 172 (1989) (notice requirement tied to providing fair opportunity to prepare to challenge hearsay)
- United States v. Brown, 770 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1985) (continuance can cure notice-related prejudice)