The requirement that the testimony be "otherwise admissible" implicates most frequently ER 401, ER 403, ER 701 and ER 702. 5A K. Tegland, Wash. Prac., Evidence § 308 (2d ed. 1982 Supp. 1987).[1] Jolene relies on State v. Haga, 8 Wn. App. 481, 507 P.2d 159, review denied, 82 Wn.2d 1006 (1973) and State v. Sargent, 40 Wn. App. 340, 698 P.2d 598 (1985) to support her contention that Officer Tripps' testimony constituted an improper opinion on her guilt. Both these cases are distinguishable, however.
The Defendant relies on two Court of Appeals decisions to show that eliciting opinion testimony regarding the effect of a defendant's demeanor is improper. The first is State v. Haga, 8 Wn. App. 481, 507 P.2d 159 (1973), a case in which the Court of Appeals reversed a defendant's conviction for the murder of his wife and infant daughter. In that case an ambulance driver was permitted to testify that the defendant's reaction to the crime was unusual in that "usually the husband or the wife will attempt to assist.
Under that test, "(1) The defendant must show he was prejudiced by the delay; (2) the court must consider the reasons for the delay; and (3) if the State is able to justify the delay, the court must undertake a further balancing of the State's interest and the prejudice to the accused."State v. Haga, 8 Wn. App. 481, 483, 507 P.2d 159, review denied, 82 Wn.2d 1006 (1973), quoting United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 122, 15 L.Ed.2d 627, 86 S.Ct. 773 (1966).Haga, 8 Wn. App. at 484, citing Marion, 404 U.S. at 322.
the court held that it was improper opinion for an ambulance driver to testify that the defendant showed no signs of grief. Appellant's Opening Brief at 19-20 (citing State v. Carlin. 40 Wn.App. 698, 700 P.2d 323 (1985), overruled on other grounds by City of Seattle v. Heatley, 70 Wn.App. 573, 854 P.2d 658 (1993), State v. Haga. 8 Wn.App. 481, 507 P.2d 159 (1973)).Carlin.
Indeed, under Washington law prosecutors have an affirmative constitutional duty to disclose potential impeachment evidence and ensure that an accused is afforded a fair trial. See State v. Haga, 8 Wash. App. 481, 493 (1973). Thus, the decision of whether any given evidence should be disclosed is within a prosecutor's role as an advocate for the State.
We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in coming to an identical conclusion and admitting the testimony. ¶17 Aguirre's reliance on State v. Black, 109 Wn.2d 336, 745 P.2d 12 (1987), State v. Garrison, 71 Wn.2d 312, 427 P.2d 1012 (1967), and State v. Haga, 8 Wn. App. 481, 507 P.2d 159 (1973), when arguing for the opposite conclusion, is misplaced. These cases are distinguishable.
The court held that the criminal charge for the bombing should not be dismissed for due process reasons. In State v. Haga, 8 Wn. App. 481, 507 P.2d 159 (1973), there was no statute of limitations governing the time for bringing a charge of murder. There was a five-year delay in filing this murder charge.
; State v. Olmedo, 112 Wn.App. 525, 530-31, 49 P.3d 960 (2002). Particularly when an opinion is expressed by a government official, such as a law enforcement officer, the opinion may influence the factfinder and thereby deny the defendant of a fair and impartial trial. State v. Carlin, 40 Wn.App. 698, 703, 700 P.2d 323 (1985); State v. Haga, 8 Wn.App. 481, 492, 507 P.2d 159 (1973), overruled on other grounds by City of Seattle v. Heatley, 70 Wn.App. 573, 854 P.2d 658 (1993).
Haga is thus inapposite. 8 Wn.App. 481, 507 P.2d 159 (1973). Haga, 8 Wn.App. at 490-92.
This rule was of relatively easy application in practice since a statement offered against the declarant would generally be against the declarant's interest, while an attempt by the declarant to enter his own statement would not be against his or her interest. E.g., Langer v. Auto Interurban Co., 28 Wash.2d 343, 345–346, 183 P.2d 188 (1947) (statements made by defendant's bus driver were self-serving and not an admission); State v. Haga, 8 Wash.App. 481, 494–495, 507 P.2d 159, review denied, 82 Wash.2d 1006, 1973 WL 41960 (1973) (defendant could not admit his exculpatory statement to police). Haga noted that the law in the area had been nicely summarized in State v. Huff, 3 Wash.App. 632, 636, 477 P.2d 22 (1970), review denied, 79 Wash.2d 1004 (1971):