State v. Otton, 185 Wash. 2d 673

Background

Otton and the victim were intimate partners; after a December 2012 incident the victim gave a written, sworn (perjury-penalized) police statement accusing Otton of choking and threats. The State charged Otton with second-degree assault and felony harassment.
At trial the victim recanted, testifying her prior allegations were false; she was cross-examined about the police statement.
The trial court admitted the prior sworn police statement as substantive evidence under ER 801(d)(1)(i); Otton was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Otton asked the Washington Supreme Court to overrule State v. Smith (interpreting ER 801(d)(1)(i)) and hold that police interviews are not “other proceeding[s]” for purposes of admitting prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence.
The core legal question: whether Smith’s case-by-case, reliability-based approach to the undefined phrase “other proceeding” remains correct or should be rejected under stare decisis.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith’s interpretation of “other proceeding” in ER 801(d)(1)(i) should be overruled	Smith is incorrect: “other proceeding” should be limited to proceedings similar to trials/hearings (adversarial, official record, neutral officer); police interviews fall outside	Smith reasonably read the rule’s open-ended language and legislative history; the four-factor test limits abuse and preserves reliability safeguards	Court refuses to overrule Smith; affirms admission and convictions
Whether ER 801(d)(1)(i) plain language compels a bright-line rule excluding police interviews	The rule’s context (trial, hearing, deposition) implies similar formal proceedings only	The phrase “other proceeding” is open-ended and includes non-judicial sworn proceedings like some police or quasi-judicial interviews	Court finds Smith’s reading reasonable and not compelled otherwise
Whether federal and other-jurisdiction decisions require abandoning Smith	Otton cites federal circuits (e.g., Dietrich) and states (e.g., Florida) that limit “other proceeding” to formal, recorded proceedings	Majority: other authorities are split; numerous federal and state cases apply a totality/reliability approach; Washington is not so extreme to warrant overruling	Court holds other jurisdictions’ disagreement insufficient to overturn Smith
Whether Smith is harmful under stare decisis standards (incorrect + harmful)	Smith produces subjective, unreliable results and is at odds with Crawford and confrontation principles	Smith includes procedural safeguards (oath, penalty, cross-exam, four-factor test) and does not raise confrontation-clause problems; no evidence of inconsistent application	Court concludes Otton failed to show Smith is clearly incorrect and harmful; adheres to stare decisis

Key Cases Cited

State v. Smith, 97 Wn.2d 856 (1982) (interpreted “other proceeding” in ER 801(d)(1)(i) via case-by-case reliability analysis)
State v. Binh Thach, 126 Wn. App. 297 (2005) (articulated a four-factor test applying Smith)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause protects right to cross-examination; distinguishes evidentiary hearsay analysis from constitutional confrontation analysis)
United States v. Dietrich, 854 F.2d 1056 (7th Cir. 1988) (held typical police interrogation is not an “other proceeding” under federal rule)
United States v. Castro-Ayon, 537 F.2d 1055 (9th Cir. 1976) (found an immigration interrogation analogous to a grand-jury-like proceeding and admissible under federal rule)
In re Rights to Waters of Stranger Creek, 77 Wn.2d 649 (1970) (stare decisis requires a clear showing that precedent is incorrect and harmful)
State v. Griffin, 173 Wn.2d 467 (2012) (standards for review of evidentiary rulings; rule interpretation is reviewed de novo)