State Of Washington, V Shane Martin Jones
76023-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- On Jan 5, 2015 Olympic Pharmacy discovered a burglary of a mobile mechanic's (Parrish) van; surveillance showed a suspect in a blue plaid jacket over a gray hoodie and light-colored pants.
- The general manager provided surveillance stills to police; a Pierce County deputy recognized the suspect as Shane Jones.
- Three days earlier (Jan 2, 2015) Deputy Plummer and witness Mavis MacFarlane had contact with Jones; MacFarlane recalled Jones wearing khaki/light pants and a dark blue/black shirt with a subtle plaid pattern.
- An Albertsons employee on Jan 2 observed a man matching that clothing leave the store without paying; store surveillance and a plate showing a vehicle registered to Jones’s brother were recovered.
- At trial the court admitted the Albertsons footage/evidence under ER 404(b) solely to prove identity; jury was so instructed and convicted Jones of burglary and theft.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior bad-act evidence under ER 404(b) to prove identity | State: prior-incident evidence is admissible to show identity; clothing and vehicle link connect Jones to both incidents | Jones: State failed to prove by preponderance he was the Albertsons suspect; evidence was more prejudicial than probative | Admission was not an abuse of discretion: trial court found misconduct by preponderance, relevance to identity, and probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Sufficiency of proof that Jones was the person in Albertsons footage | State: testimony, distinctive clothing match, and vehicle tied to Jones’s brother suffice | Jones: brother could have been the person; identity not proved | Court: evidence (matching clothing, witness ID, car tied to brother) met preponderance standard |
| Prejudicial effect because both incidents involved theft | Jones: prior theft allegation is highly prejudicial and inflammatory | State: evidence admitted only for identity with limiting instruction; probative value high | Court: limiting instruction plus relevance to identity reduced unfair prejudice; not manifestly unreasonable |
| Whether State could have ‘‘sanitized’’ testimony to avoid mentioning suspected shoplifting | Jones: jury should not hear shoplifting allegation | State: sanitizing would hamper witness testimony and create reliability issues | Court: trial court reasonably denied full sanitization as unfairly prejudicial to State’s presentation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405 (2012) (sets four-part ER 404(b) test)
- State v. Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630 (2002) (discusses standard of review and ER 404(b) principles)
- State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11 (2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (legal standard for investigatory stops)
- State v. Calegar, 133 Wn.2d 718 (1997) (ER 609 impeachment context discussed by court)
- State v. Perrett, 86 Wn. App. 312 (1997) (prior-act evidence inadmissible when not relevant to charged crime)