State of Washington v. Michael Curtis Colley
33344-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Colley was stopped driving a stolen vehicle and gave false identification (presented Brunetti's license; claimed name "Carlos").
- Passenger Adel Estrada also gave a false name; both were arrested and deputies obtained a warrant to search the vehicle.
- Items seized from the stolen car included two guns, ammunition, Camel Crush cigarettes, a ski mask, miscellaneous items, and a Walgreens receipt; photographs and many items were admitted at trial.
- Separately, an Adams County deputy found a Hyundai with a broken window containing mail for Brunetti, a box of Camel Crush cigarettes, and Estrada paperwork; the State sought admission of this evidence under ER 404(b).
- A jury convicted Colley of unlawful possession of a firearm, identity theft, possession of a stolen vehicle (felonies), and misdemeanor counts including possession of stolen property and making a false statement; Colley appealed primarily on evidentiary grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Walgreens receipt (hearsay) | Receipt was properly authenticated/adopted by Colley or admissible to fix timing | Receipt was hearsay; not admitted as business record under RCW 5.45.020; mere possession is not adoptive admission | Error to admit receipt for its contents (hearsay), but error harmless because Estrada and other physical evidence established purchases and timing was not material |
| Admission of Adams County Hyundai evidence under ER 404(b) | Evidence showed a pattern linking Colley to other thefts and items (Camel Crush, Brunetti mail) | Admission lacked proper 404(b) balancing and foundation; prejudicial and not essential to proving Franklin County crimes | Court failed to record required 404(b) balancing (error), but admission was harmless because core crimes were proved by events in presence of officers and Hyundai evidence had little probative value here |
| Admission of ski mask (relevance/404(b)/ER 403) | Mask implied intent/knowledge of theft and need to conceal identity | Colley claimed irrelevance and prejudice (ER 403) | Mask was relevant to knowledge/need to hide identity; ER 403 argument waived at trial; admission proper |
| Prosecutor's question about Estrada's "honesty" (invading jury province) | Question called for jury-like credibility determination/opinion | Question was to elicit investigative course; not soliciting credibility of a witness then testifying; defense later impeached Estrada | Not prejudicial; context showed it explained investigation and matched defense strategy; any error harmless or waived |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11 (discretionary review of evidentiary rulings including ER 404(b))
- State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12 (standard for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412 (preservation rule for appellate review of evidentiary objections)
- State v. Lough, 125 Wn.2d 847 (framework for admitting ER 404(b) evidence and balancing test)
- State v. Laureano, 101 Wn.2d 745 (404(b) evidence is substantive, not impeachment)
- State v. Brown, 113 Wn.2d 520 (discussion of limits on prior precedent regarding 404(b))
- State v. Kilgore, 147 Wn.2d 288 (trial court not required to hold separate 404(b) hearing)
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (admission of other-acts evidence is nonconstitutional)
- State v. Zwicker, 105 Wn.2d 228 (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional error)