State v. Gauthier
298 P.3d 126
Wash. Ct. App.2013Background
- Gauthier was convicted of second degree rape in King County for the 2001 incident with T.A.
- DNA on T.A.’s jacket sleeve matched a male profile later identified as Gauthier; L.F. was ruled out as the attacker.
- Detective Knudsen sought a cheek swab from Gauthier; Gauthier initially refused on advice of counsel.
- The trial court allowed cross-examination about the refusal, but not about a lawyer’s involvement; no objection at trial.
- During closing and rebuttal, the State contrasted Gauthier’s refusal with L.F.’s voluntary DNA submission, urging guilt.
- The jury found Gauthier guilty; on appeal, he challenged the use of his refusal as substantive evidence of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May refusal to consent to a DNA test be used as evidence of guilt | Gauthier’s refusal is admissible as impeachment/credibility evidence | Refusal is protected by Fourth/Fifth Amendment rights and cannot prove guilt | Constitutional error in using refusal as guilt evidence; not harmless |
| Is use of refusal for impeachment permissible | Refusal can impeach credibility when inconsistent with testimony | Refusal should not imply guilt and is not proper impeachment | Use for impeachment rejected; not supported by record; improper framing |
| Whether the error was harmless | DNA and other testimony established guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Inflammatory references to refusal could not alter verdict given other evidence | Not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (silence used against a defendant violates privilege against self-incrimination)
- Burke v. State, 163 Wn.2d 204 (2008) (court cautions against using prearrest silence as evidence of guilt; protection for exercising rights)
- State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713 (2010) (right to refuse DNA testing discussed as constitutional violation when used to prejudice)
- United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1978) (defendant's refusal to consent to warrantless search cannot be evidence of guilt)
- United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2002) (circuit courts hold that refusal to consent to warrantless search may not be evidence of guilt)