State Of Washington v. Tyler Bam Bowman
74548-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 10, 2017Background
- Surveillance video captured two men burglarizing a yoga studio and a restaurant in Kirkland at ~4:00 a.m. on January 20, 2015; still images were extracted.
- Detective Slominski distributed the images; Everett detective Michael Atwood and community corrections officer Staci Rickey identified Bowman from the stills.
- Officer Michael Szilagyi later told Slominski he had seen Bowman with Kevin Everson; Slominski compared Everson’s driver’s license photo and opined Everson was the other man in the video.
- Bowman’s cell phone records placed his phone ~0.5 mile from the burglary location about 3:35 a.m. that morning.
- Bowman and Everson were tried together for two counts of second-degree burglary; both convicted. Bowman appealed, challenging (1) Slominski’s lay identification of Everson and (2) Szilagyi’s testimony about a post-burglary encounter of Bowman and Everson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of detective Slominski’s lay opinion that Everson is pictured in surveillance still | State: Slominski’s close, in-person encounters with Everson made him better placed than the jury to ID the suspect | Bowman: Slominski’s limited contact (≈1 hour) improperly invaded the jury’s role and was unreliable | Court: Admitted; Slominski’s close-range interviews and the available comparison photos provided a sufficient basis for lay ID |
| Admissibility of Officer Szilagyi’s testimony that Bowman and Everson were seen together in a parking lot at 3 a.m. weeks later | State: The encounter shows the two men know each other and supports they were the two in the video | Bowman: Testimony was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, suggesting other criminal intent | Court: Admitted; testimony was relevant to showing familiarity between defendants and probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mapes, 164 Wn.2d 174 (discussion of abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Hardy, 76 Wn. App. 188 (officer with longstanding familiarity may properly give lay identification of persons in surveillance video)
- United States v. LaPierre, 998 F.2d 1460 (9th Cir.) (cautions against lay identification by officers with limited familiarity)
- State v. George, 150 Wn. App. 110 (officer contacts insufficient to support lay identification from poor-quality video)