State of Washington v. Luis Guadalupe Rodriguez-Perez
33571-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- On March 22, 2014, a fight and subsequent shooting at a Yakima concert killed Da'Marius Morgan; surveillance and witness testimony placed Luis Rodriguez-Perez, William Martinez, and Efren Iniguez at the scene; a recovered gun matched Rodriguez-Perez by fingerprint.
- Martinez initially told police Rodriguez-Perez was the shooter; several eyewitnesses identified Martinez at a show-up based largely on clothing and hairstyle.
- The State charged both men with second-degree murder; Martinez was additionally charged with unlawful possession of a firearm; the court consolidated trials over severance requests.
- Mid-trial Martinez sought to introduce gang-related evidence (to show motive) and proposed expert testimony on cross-racial eyewitness identification; the court excluded gang evidence and limited the expert’s testimony.
- During closing the prosecutor used a PowerPoint with captions summarizing evidence and inserting editorial comments; defendants did not object at trial.
- Both defendants were convicted; on appeal they challenged prosecutorial misconduct (PowerPoint captions and vouching), exclusion of defense evidence (gang affiliation and cross-racial ID expert), the reasonable-doubt instruction, and an LFO scrivener’s error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct: PowerPoint captions/editorializing | Slides summarized evidence and helped jury understand testimony and exhibits | Captions altered/edited evidence and prejudiced defendants (compare Glasmann) | Majority: captions were based on evidence and reasonable inferences; only one caption ("Good Times") was improper but not prejudicial; no new trial required |
| Improper vouching / credibility comments | Prosecutor argued inferences from evidence; did not place government prestige behind witnesses | Prosecutor vouched for Martinez and improperly endorsed his testimony | Held: no improper vouching; credibility comments were inferences from the evidence and permitted |
| Exclusion of gang evidence (right to present a defense) | Gang evidence was marginal and State previously agreed it was irrelevant; admission would be highly prejudicial to Rodriguez-Perez | Martinez: exclusion prevented him from showing motive and that Rodriguez-Perez (not Martinez) was the shooter | Held: trial court did not abuse discretion—nexus between gang membership and shooting was insufficient and admission would unfairly prejudice Rodriguez-Perez; right to present defense yields to fair-trial concerns |
| Exclusion of expert on cross-racial ID | Expert testimony generally admissible to help jurors assess ID reliability where relevant | Martinez: needed expert to challenge Adams’s ID (Adams non-Hispanic; Martinez Hispanic) | Held: trial court did not err—Adams identified shooter by clothing/hat, not race, so cross-racial-ID testimony would not assist jury |
| Reasonable-doubt instruction language | Instruction mirrored Washington Pattern and federal precedent; "abiding belief" language appropriate | Defendants argued instruction lowered burden of proof (post-Emery) | Held: instruction permissible; Emery did not invalidate the "abiding belief" phrasing |
| Scrivener error re: costs of incarceration | N/A (State concedes) | Rodriguez-Perez: judgment mistakenly retained incarceration costs despite waiver | Held: remand to correct judgment and strike incarceration costs; appellate costs not awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (discussing prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice standard)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d 696 (discussing limits on PowerPoint/editorialized exhibits in closing)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (upholding "abiding belief in the truth" language in reasonable-doubt instruction)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (right to present a defense may yield to other legitimate trial interests)
- State v. Cheatem, 150 Wn.2d 626 (expert testimony on eyewitness ID when it would assist jury)