Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

No. 72666-8-1/19

Marin also claims the trial court erred in striking coworker Lloyd Holman's

testimony that he heard statements from unidentified coworkers that Marin had

complained against his C Crew supervisor, Alenduff.

The trial court may condition admission of a party's evidence on the

party's later introduction of facts necessary to make that evidence relevant.40

After eliciting Holman's testimony, Marin offered no evidence that any alleged

harasser had heard that he complained against Alenduff, let alone that they knew

his complaint related to sexual harassment. The trial court did not abuse its

discretion in finding such evidence necessary to make Holman's testimony

relevant.

Jury Selection Issues

Marin next claims that the trial court failed to fully question and excuse

juror 71, improperly reduced Marin's voir dire time, and improperly subtracted

from Marin's trial time for a for-cause challenge.

The trial court has discretion to grant or deny a for-cause challenge.41

That "discretion includes assuring that an impartial jury is selected 'with

reasonable expedition.'"42 When "the course of proceeding is not specifically

40 ER 104(b).
41 State v. Wilson. 141 Wn. App. 597, 606, 171 P.3d 501 (2007).
42 State v. Brady, 116 Wn. App. 143, 147, 64 P.3d 1258 (2003) (quoting
State v. Frederiksen, 40 Wn. App. 749, 753, 700 P.2d 369 (1985)).
-19-
             

No. 72666-8-1 / 20

pointed out by statute," the trial court may adopt "any suitable process or mode of

proceeding . . . which may appear most conformable to the spirit of the laws."43

"[A] party accepting a juror without exercising its available challenges