Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2051946-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,729 chars

Q. You and Mr. Smith and Mr. Broussard made multiple withdrawals from both
the U.S. Bank account and from the Wells Fargo accounts, correct?

A. Not correct.

Q. You each knew what the other two was doing, correct?

A. Not correct.

Q. And the three of you were all working together to get the money, weren’t you?

A. Not correct.

Q. Except that’s all contained within the plea statement that you signed, correct?

A. No, not correct.

Q. That’s not your signature at the bottom of paragraph 11?

A. Like I said, these statements are not correct, for the last time. They’re not from
my mouth.

Q. But you adopted –

A. No, I didn’t adopt anything. They’re not from my mouth.

17
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 51946-1-II

Q. You told the Court you adopted them as your own, correct?

A. They’re not mine. Like I said, all I did was initial and sign just so I can hurry
up and leave.

6 RP at 905-07.

Evidentiary Rulings on James’s Prior Bad Acts and Statements

After James’s testimony, the trial court analyzed whether documentary evidence of

James’s financial transactions would be admissible against Smith and Broussard. The court

concluded that

[A]s I apply Evidence Rule 404(b) and Evidence Rule 403, I believe and find that
the circumstantial evidence of an overall criminal scheme and the defendants’
knowledge of it and their motive and intent to participate is highly probative and
its probative value, in the Court’s view, clearly outweighs the minimal risks that
are cautioned against in Evidence Rule 403.

7 RP at 951. The trial court admitted the documentary evidence.

The trial court stated that the documentary evidence “might appropriately be the subject