[1] We adhere to the rule that it is within the discretion of the trial court to allow oral testimony, in addition to affidavits, when hearing a motion to suppress evidence. State v. Green, 43 Wn.2d 102, 105, 260 P.2d 343 (1953), and authorities cited. Neither defense counsel's affidavit nor his offer of proof show any facts from which it could be concluded that the trial court abused its discretion.

See 23 A.L.R. 2d 919, 926. Cf State v. Green, 43 Wn.2d 102, 260 P.2d 343 (1953). Any voluntary inconsistent oral or written statement made by a defendant to a witness is material if it contains an admission against his own interest.

The record discloses neither a pretrial nor a trial motion to suppress the introduction in evidence of the cover. See State v. Green, 43 Wn.2d 102, 104, 260 P.2d 343 (1953). The trial court refused to admit it in evidence, so that the question of its admissibility (upon which we express no opinion) is not before us.

CrR 3.6(a) ; see State v. Kipp, 171 Wash. App. 14, 28, 286 P.3d 68 (2012) ("The trial court has discretion whether to take oral testimony on a motion to suppress.") (citing State v. McLaughlin, 74 Wash.2d 301, 303, 444 P.2d 699 (1968) ), rev'd on other grounds, 179 Wash.2d 718, 317 P.3d 1029 (2014) ; see also State v. Green, 43 Wash.2d 102, 105, 260 P.2d 343 (1953) ("In this state, the court, when conducting a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, may consider oral testimony in addition to, or in lieu of, affidavits."). ¶11

CrR 3.6(a); see State v. Kipp, 171 Wn.App. 14, 28, 286 P.3d 68 (2012) "The trial court has discretion whether to take oral testimony on a motion to suppress.") (citing State v. McLaughlin, 74 Wn.2d 301, 303, 444 P.2d 699 (1968)), rev'd on other grounds, 179 Wn.2d 718, 317 P.3d 1029 (2014); see also State v. Green, 43 Wn.2d 102, 105, 260 P.2d 343 (1953) ("In this state, the court, when conducting a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, may consider oral testimony in addition to, or in lieu of, affidavits."). Here, the court decided to hold a hearing without oral argument on May 5, 2021, after it received Frohs's CrR 7.8 motion, the State's response, and the State's calendar notice for a hearing without oral argument on May 5.

Evidence of other crimes found incident to a lawful arrest may be used in prosecution for crimes other than the one for which the arrest was made. State v. Green, 43 Wn.2d 102, 260 P.2d 343 (1953). Similarly, in State v. Dearinger, 73 Wn.2d 563, 439 P.2d 971 (1968), articles found in an adjoining neighbor's yard, where the officers' physical senses told them they had probably been thrown as they were searching the defendant's house under authority of a search warrant, were held to be taken in a lawful seizure under the search warrant even though the warrant did not describe the adjoining yard nor mention its occupants.

[1] We may begin our discussion regarding the admissibility of the evidence involved here by noting that when conducting a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court may hear the matter entirely on affidavits, or has discretion to consider oral testimony in addition to, or in lieu of, affidavits. State v. McLaughlin, 74 Wn.2d 301, 303, 444 P.2d 699 (1968); State v. Green, 43 Wn.2d 102, 105, 260 P.2d 343 (1953). Of course the purpose of such a hearing is to give the trial court an opportunity to rule on the disputed question of whether the evidence was obtained in an unlawful manner. The hearing is conducted prior to the time the case is called for trial in order to allow the trial, once begun, to proceed in an orderly fashion to its conclusion without the necessity of stopping it to try collateral issues.