Opinion
No. 51858-5-I.
Filed: March 1, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Snohomish County. Docket No. 02-1-01861-5. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 01/27/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Larry E McKeeman.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Washington Appellate Project, Attorney at Law, Cobb Building, 1305 4th Avenue, Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101.
Thomas Michael Kummerow, WA Appellate Project, Cobb Bldg, 1305 4th Ave Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101-2402.
Counsel for Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Rebecca Jane Quirk, Attorney at Law, Pr Aty of Miss Bldg Ms504, 3000 Rockefeller Ave, Everett, WA 98201-4046.
John Stansell, Attorney at Law, Snohomish Co Pros Ofc, 3000 Rockefeller Ave, Everett, WA 98201-4060.
During Luis Velasco-Hernandez's trial for two counts of first degree rape of a child, the court found the victim's hearsay statements reliable and admitted them into evidence. A jury convicted Velasco-Hernandez as charged. He appeals, arguing in part that the victim's statements were unreliable because she said she wanted him in jail and therefore had a motive to lie. Because we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statements, we affirm.
DECISION
Velasco-Hernandez's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting C.R.'s hearsay statements. This contention is meritless.
Trial courts are vested with considerable discretion with respect to child hearsay and will be reversed only for a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613, 648, 790 P.2d 610 (1990); State v. Pham, 75 Wn. App. 626, 631, 879 P.2d 321 (1994).
In deciding whether to admit hearsay from children under age ten, courts weigh nine reliability factors. The trial court in this case weighed the factors and found C.R.'s statements reliable. Velasco-Hernandez argues that the trial court erred in its assessment of one of the nine factors — i.e. whether the victim had a motive to lie. As to that factor, the trial court stated:
The nine factors are: (1) whether the declarant had an apparent motive to lie; (2) the declarant's general character; (3) whether more than one person heard the statements; (4) the spontaneity of the statements; (5) the timing of the declaration and the relationship between the declarant and the witness; (6) whether the statements contain express assertions of past fact; (7) whether the declarant's lack of knowledge could be established by cross-examination; (8) the possibility of the declarant's recollection being faulty; and (9) whether the circumstances suggest the declarant misrepresented the defendant's involvement. State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165, 175-76, 691 P.2d 197 (1984).
There is no such apparent motive based upon my review and consideration of the evidence. There was no indication that [C.R.] had any reason to get the Defendant out of the house or to break up the relationship between the Defendant and her mother. She had, by the testimony, a good relationship with him outside of these events occurring. They did fun things together, she spent time with him and liked him.
RP (12/16/02) at 79.
Velasco-Hernandez does not dispute that he and C.R. had a good relationship. He argues, however, that C.R. had a motive to lie because she witnessed a heated argument between him and her mother, and because she later told a police interviewer she wanted him to go to jail. He contends C.R.'s motive to lie is so significant that it 'renders the remaining [reliability] factors irrelevant. . . .' We disagree.
C.R. told a child interview specialist that she hoped Velasco-Hernandez 'gets in jail, because that will make me feel so comfortable.'
App. Br. at 11.
The argument between Velasco-Hernandez and C.R.'s mother, though heated, did not involve any statements or actions that would provide a motive for C.R.'s allegations. C.R. did state that she hoped Velasco-Hernandez would go to jail, but she did so only after disclosing the facts that ultimately gave rise to the charges in this case. Our review of the record reveals no basis for C.R.'s desire to see Velasco-Hernandez in jail other than the charged offenses. The record thus supports the trial court's finding that C.R. had no motive to lie.
Because Velasco-Hernandez addresses only one of the nine reliability factors, and because we have rejected his assessment of that factor, his argument regarding the admission of C.R.'s hearsay statements fails. His pro se statement of additional grounds for review contains nothing of arguable merit.
Although we need not address the other reliability factors, we note that a review of those factors supports the admission of C.R.'s hearsay statements.
Affirmed.
KENNEDY and COX, JJ., concur.