Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."51 And if one

party opens the door, the court may admit "'evidence on the same issue to rebut

any false impression that might have resulted.'"52

Here, the trial court excluded testimony about Marin's credibility and

instructed the jury to disregard any that came close.53 McClung's testimony did

not relate to Marin's credibility but to his medical conditions, whether the County

could reasonably accommodate them, and whether Marin could perform the

essential functions of his job. Marin's accommodations claim put all of these

matters at issue. Consequently, McClung's testimony was not impermissible

49 Riehl v. Foodmaker. Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 145, 94 P.3d 930 (2004)
(quoting Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 144 Wn.2d 172, 193, 23 P.3d 440 (2001)).
50 Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn.2d 521, 532, 70 P.3d 126 (2003)
(emphasis omitted) (quoting J—im, 144 Wn.2d at 193).
51 ER 702.
52 United States v. Sine. 493 F.3d 1021, 1037 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting
United States v. Whitworth. 856 F.2d 1268, 1285 (9th Cir. 1998)); State v. Fisher.
165 Wn.2d 727, 750, 202 P.3d 937 (2009).
53 The court instructed the jury to disregard testimony that "under stress
Mr. Marin might have difficulties with an accurate perception of reality."
Instructions can cure errors in admitting testimony. State v. Perez-Valdez. 172
Wn.2d 808, 818-19, 265 P.3d 853 (2011).
-22-
             

No. 72666-8-1 / 23

character evidence under ER 404.54 And since McClung's testimony was highly

probative as to Marin's medical conditions, the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in not excluding it under ER 403.

Moreover, Marin opened the door to testimony about the accuracy of his