Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,721 chars
no abuse of discretion regarding instruction no. 9.

14 SPD also argues that the trial court unduly emphasized Sgt. Hockett’s theory of the case by

reading the instruction to the jury multiple times during the trial. SPD relies on Cornejo v. State, 57
Wn. App. 314, 319-21, 788 P.2d 554 (1990), which held that a trial court erred in reading a
contributory negligence instruction multiple times during the trial because its repetition “unfairly
turned the jury’s attention away from the clear evidence of the State’s negligence, toward the
question of Mrs. Cornejo’s contributory negligence.” Cornejo is distinguishable because the
instruction in that case stated a single legal principle that was favorable to the party that prevailed
at trial. That did not occur here.

32
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I

VI

SPD argues the trial court erred in granting Sgt. Hockett’s motion in limine

to exclude portions of an L&I report stating that SPD did not violate occupational

CO exposure standards at the West Garage in August 2017 and declining to issue

a citation. We disagree.

“Out-of-court statements offered in court to prove the truth of the matter

asserted are hearsay, which is generally not admissible.” Brundridge v. Fluor Fed.

Servs., Inc., 164 Wn.2d 432, 450, 191 P.3d 879 (2008) (citing ER 801, 802).

Hearsay can still be admissible under the public records exception codified in RCW

5.44.040, which provides, “Copies of all records and documents on record or on

file in the offices of the various departments . . . of this state . . . when duly certified

. . . must be admitted in evidence in the courts of this state.” However, “not every