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

1,726 chars

$200 criminal filing fee. The trial court did not consider at the sentencing hearing whether Smith

was indigent. But the court found Smith indigent for purposes of appeal.

A. EXCLUSION OF JAMES’S ATTORNEY’S TESTIMONY

Smith argues that the trial court’s exclusion of the testimony of James’s attorney

regarding the circumstances under which the statements in James’s plea agreement were drafted

violated his constitutional right to present a defense. We disagree.

1. Legal Principles

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense. State v. Jones, 168

Wn.2d 713, 720, 230 P.3d 576 (2010). This right to present a defense derives from the Sixth

Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the Washington

Constitution. State v. Wade, 186 Wn. App. 749, 763, 346 P.3d 838 (2015). There also is a

19
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 51946-1-II

fundamental due process right to present a defense under the Fourteenth Amendment. State v.

Lizarraga, 191 Wn. App. 530, 551-52, 364 P.3d 810 (2015).

However, a defendant has no constitutional right to present evidence that is inadmissible

under standard evidence rules. Wade, 186 Wn. App. at 764. Pertinent here, “[d]efendants have a

right to present only relevant evidence, with no constitutional right to present irrelevant

evidence.” Jones, 168 Wn.2d at 720. Therefore, a defendant’s evidence must at least have

minimal relevance to implicate the right to present a defense. Id.

In evaluating whether the exclusion of evidence violates the defendant’s constitutional

right to present a defense, “the State’s interest in excluding evidence must be balanced against