269 P.3d 1072
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wallin was charged with drug offenses following a July 1, 2009 traffic stop and search.
- Wallin testified the wooden box found in the van belonged to his friend Antone; he claimed ownership to avoid loyalty issues.
- Prosecutor cross-examined Wallin about whether his trial presence allowed tailoring of testimony based on other evidence.
- Wallin appealed arguing the cross-examination violated his rights to appear, defend in person, and confront witnesses.
- Washington Supreme Court (in Martin) had held tailoring inquiries may be allowed if the defendant opens the door; the present case argued Wallin did not open that door.
- The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the State’s tailoring suggestion improper here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tailoring-cross examination violated Article I, section 22. | Wallin: no door opened; tailoring admonition improper. | Wallin: Martin allows tailoring inquiry if door opened; here door not opened. | Improper; reversal and new trial. |
| Scope of Martin: tailoring allowed only when defendant opens the door. | State relies on Martin to permit tailoring inquiry. | Wallin: Martin limits tailoring to specific tailoring when door is opened. | Martin limited to specific tailoring; generic tailoring not permitted here. |
| Did Wallin open the door to tailoring inquiry by testifying in court? | Wallin’s presence allowed cross-examination about tailoring. | There was no basis to infer tailoring from his trial presence. | Door not opened; improper cross-examination. |
| Should the case be remanded for a new trial due to error? | Error was only procedural; not reversible per se. | Error undermines rights; requires remedy. | Remand for new trial. |
| How do related authorities (Portuondo, Johnson, Smith, Rupe) influence Washington rule? | Portuondo/Johnson/Smith principles support cross-examination. | Portuondo does not sanction generic tailoring; state constitution protections apply. | Portuondo framework acknowledged; Martin distinguishes tailoring context; here restraint applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martin, 171 Wn.2d 521 (2011) (tailoring questions may be allowed if door is opened; specific tailoring considered)
- Hilton, 164 Wn. App. 81 (2011) (inquiry to explain inconsistencies after police statements)
- Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (2000) (tailoring cross-examination judged under US Constitution; tailoring discussed)
- State v. Smith, 82 Wn. App. 327 (1996) (prosecutor cross-examination on tailoring; caution against implied tailoring)
- State v. Johnson, 80 Wn. App. 337 (1996) (gunwell/Rupe framework; tailoring discussion in Sixth Amendment context)
- State v. Rupe, 101 Wn.2d 664 (1984) (avoid chilling exercise of constitutional rights; inference rules)
- State v. Miller, 110 Wn. App. 283 (2002) (Portuondo overruled Smith as to federal Sixth Amendment context)