Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,741 chars

had no tendency to prove that the symptoms for which he was seeking recovery

were caused by his military exposures and, thus, were irrelevant.

But even if these prior statements were relevant, the trial court properly

excluded them under ER 403, which allows trial courts to exclude relevant

evidence if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair

prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.” The probative value

was minimal because Sgt. Hockett’s statements were his own lay opinions

speculating on the source of his chronic fatigue rather than a diagnosis from a

qualified medical provider. Conversely, this evidence posed a substantial risk of

confusing the issues or misleading the jury because it would have presented

visceral imagery of Sgt. Hockett’s combat experience (such as burning oil fields,

uranium, diesel fumes, and insecticides) without connecting these environmental

exposures to his current symptoms. Further, the exclusion of this evidence did not

change the outcome of trial because SPD was still allowed to use these redacted

statements to impeach Sgt. Hockett and argue in closing that he began

23
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I

experiencing chronic fatigue before he started working at SPD. Therefore, the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence. 8

Lastly, SPD claims the trial court was required to admit this evidence

because it was included in its ER 904 notice, to which Sgt. Hockett did not timely

object. This argument fails because although ER 904(a) generally provides that

certain documents proposed as exhibits before trial in accordance with the rule