State Of Washington v. Mitchell Henry Ramm, 74124-1

On May 18, 2014, zoo security officer John McKissick encountered Mitchell Ramm camping in the rose garden and told him to leave; Ramm refused.
An altercation ensued after McKissick called 911: Ramm shouted, attempted to punch McKissick, produced two wooden clubs, struck McKissick multiple times, and threw objects including a pallet and pieces of cement.
Bystanders gathered; police arrived about 30 seconds after Ramm sat on a bench. Ramm complied with officers and was handcuffed.
Ramm was charged with second degree assault and was alleged to have been armed with a deadly weapon (the wooden clubs). He raised a diminished capacity defense based on severe mental illness (schizoaffective/schizophrenia).
At trial the court excluded Ramm’s out-of-custody statements to police (e.g., “You should be arresting the other guy,” “He attacked me”) as hearsay; Ramm was convicted as charged.
On appeal Ramm argued the statements were non-hearsay (state-of-mind), alternatively admissible as excited utterances, and that exclusion prejudiced his diminished-capacity defense; he also sought to avoid appellate costs as indigent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ramm’s post-arrest statements were hearsay	Statements were offered to show Ramm’s state of mind (objectively false belief of being attacked) and thus not hearsay	Statements were offered for their truth and should be excluded as hearsay	Court: Statements were offered to show state of mind and therefore not hearsay; exclusion was error
Whether excited-utterance exception or ineffective assistance applies	(alternative) Statements admissible as excited utterances; counsel ineffective for not arguing it	State did not concede exception; argued harmless	Court did not decide excited-utterance issue (unnecessary) and did not find ineffective assistance raised successfully on this record
Whether exclusion was harmless error	Ramm: Exclusion impaired presentation of diminished-capacity defense	State: Overwhelming evidence and expert testimony already presented Ramm’s belief and mental illness, so error was harmless	Court: Error was harmless; no reasonable probability of different outcome
Whether appellate costs should be awarded	Ramm: Indigent; should be exempt from appellate costs	State: Requested costs	Court: Ramm presumed still indigent; appellate costs denied

State v. Gunderson, 181 Wn.2d 916 (2014) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion)
State v. Crowder, 103 Wn. App. 20 (2000) (hearsay depends on purpose offered; non-hearsay when offered for inference other than truth)
State v. Howard, 127 Wn. App. 862 (2005) (prejudice required for reversal of evidentiary error)
State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wn.2d 389 (1997) (materially affected outcome standard for prejudice)
State v. Pavlik, 165 Wn. App. 645 (2011) (no per se rule excluding self-serving out-of-court statements)
State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (2016) (presumption of continued indigency on appeal)

Outcome: Affirmed (conviction stands; appellate costs denied).