State v. Mohamed
186 Wash. 2d 235
| Wash. | 2016Background
- Defendant Sayiden Mohamed charged with two counts of third-degree assault for spitting on police officers; he did not testify.
- Defense advanced an extreme intoxication (alcohol-induced blackout) defense through pharmacologist Dr. Robert Julien, who based his opinion on Mohamed’s out-of-court statements about his alcohol consumption.
- Trial court offered a limiting instruction (ER 105) restricting Mohamed’s statements to the purpose of explaining the expert’s opinion; defense counsel expressly declined the instruction and agreed the jury should consider credibility issues.
- The State cross-examined Dr. Julien using Mohamed’s prior convictions for theft under ER 806 (impeachment of hearsay declarant) after those convictions had been admitted pretrial under ER 609(a)(2).
- Trial court later granted a new trial, relying on State v. Lucas; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The State appealed to the Washington Supreme Court.
- Washington Supreme Court held the statements were effectively offered for their truth because (1) defendant offered them through his expert, (2) defense declined the limiting instruction, (3) no other foundation supported the expert’s opinion, and (4) jury was told to consider defendant’s credibility; therefore ER 806 impeachment was permissible and convictions reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mohamed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ER 806 permits impeachment of a nontestifying defendant via cross-exam of his expert about the defendant’s prior convictions | ER 806 applies where declarant’s out-of-court statements were admitted and the jury was permitted to consider them for their truth; impeachment allowed | Expert’s reliance statements were admitted only for nonhearsay purpose (basis of opinion); ER 806 should not apply | Court: ER 806 applies here because statements were effectively admitted for their truth under the trial record (defense declined limiting instruction, no independent foundation) |
| Whether admission of the defendant’s statements as the basis for an expert’s opinion automatically precludes ER 806 impeachment (impact of State v. Lucas) | Lucas should not bar impeachment where statements are treated as substantive by the jury | Lucas controls and prohibits using ER 806 to impeach declarant when statements are admitted only as basis for expert opinion | Court: Overturns Lucas to the extent it bars ER 806 when evidence is not limited to its proper purpose; here Lucas distinguishable because no limiting instruction was given/ requested |
| Whether the lack of a limiting instruction required exclusion of prior-conviction impeachment evidence | Jury can consider credibility and truth when no limiting instruction is given or is declined; party cannot invite error then complain | Defense: declining limiting instruction does not cure the supposed legal error; impeachment still improper | Court: Defense’s express refusal to request limiting instruction permits jury to consider statements for truth; invited-error doctrine bars later complaint |
| Whether ER 609/ER 806 impeachment was unduly prejudicial | State: prior convictions were admissible impeachment evidence under ER 609 and ER 806; no prejudice argument preserved | Defense: implied prejudice; Lucas and principles of ER 703/705 counsel against such impeachment | Court: Prejudice not argued/preserved; on the merits ER 806 allows impeachment and balancing under ER 403 was not raised |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lucas, 167 Wn. App. 100 (court of appeals 2012) (held out-of-court statements used as basis for expert opinion are not hearsay and thus ordinarily not subject to ER 806 impeachment)
- State v. Fish, 99 Wn. App. 86 (court of appeals) (ER 806 authorizes impeachment only when statement admitted for truth)
- State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26 (Wash. 1997) (absent limiting instruction, evidence admitted for one purpose may be considered for others)
- State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354 (Wash. 2007) (failure to request limiting instruction waives appellate challenge)
- State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215 (Wash. 1981) (motions for new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion on factual grounds; legal errors reviewed de novo)