 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Roberts10/26/1999
the witnesses agreed there was a scuffle involving Mr. Roberts and Mr. Valdez; Mr. Roberts' torn shirt would have added little, if anything, to his defense.
Mr. Earl's alleged failure to corroborate Mr. Roberts' testimony that Mr. Valdez took off his shirt: Mr. Roberts testified that, after the "bitch slap," Mr. Valdez took off his shirt and approached him. He contends on appeal that this was a sign of Mr. Valdez's hostile intent, and Mr. Earl failed to corroborate this testimony in his questioning of other witnesses. Mr. Roberts has failed to point to anything in the record suggesting any other witness actually would have testified, if asked, that Mr. Valdez took off his shirt. Moreover, the "bitch slap" itself established Mr. Valdez's hostile intent. Whatever the evidentiary value of Mr. Valdez's removing his shirt, it was cumulative at best.
Mr. Earl's alleged failure to corroborate Mr. Roberts' testimony that Mr. Valdez was a violent man: In support of his self-defense claim, Mr. Roberts testified he knew Mr. Valdez was a violent person who had bragged about kicking people's asses and was affiliated with a gang in California. Mr. Roberts reportedly also told Mr. Earl that Mr. Valdez had committed other violent acts. Mr. Earl did not present evidence corroborating these allegations at trial, and Mr. Roberts alleges this failure was deficient. However, the record does not support the implication that any corroboration was available, even if it were admissible under ER 404(a). Finally, other evidence gave jurors a picture of Mr. Valdez's violent nature. For example, Billy Reyes testified Mr. Valdez had been involved in a recent confrontation, after which he attempted to obtain a gun. Mr. Valdez admitted his involvement in the incident. Mr. Roberts, whose subjective belief was relevant to the question before the jury, testified he knew Mr. Valdez had wanted to get a gun and in fact had obtained one and was a violent person who bragged about his physical conquests. Mr. Earl's failure to add to this evidence, even if any corroboration was available, did not deprive Mr. Roberts of a fair trial.
Mr. Earl's alleged failure to impeach Mr. Valdez's testimony with his prior criminal convictions: In an offer of proof during trial, Mr. Valdez testified his only prior felony conviction was a juvenile conviction for robbery in California. Mr. Earl attempted to admit this conviction, but the court excluded it. Mr. Roberts contends on appeal that Mr. Valdez had two additional juvenile convictions, one for second degree burglary and another for giving false information to a police officer. The record reflects that before trial the parties did discuss other juvenile convictions against Mr. Valdez. However, juvenile adjudications are "generally not admissible" as impeachment evidence. ER 609(d). In light of the court's decision to exclude Mr. Valdez's robbery conviction, Mr. Earl's apparent Conclusion the other alleged convictions also would be excluded was not unreasonable. Mr. Roberts has failed to demonstrate Mr. Earl's performance was deficient.
Mr. Earl's alleged failure to obtain the testimony of Angel Medina or to stipulate to admission of Mr. Medina's statement to police: Mr. Medina (Gabriel's father) lived at the home where the stabbing occurred and witnessed it. He gave a statement to police, but was in California at the time of trial. Mr. Earl declined the State's offer to stipulate to admissibility of Mr. Medina's statement.
There are parts of his statement that support what Mr. Roberts generally what the theory of the defense {is} in this case factually. And certainly there are parts of his statement that support what the State has presented in terms of the fac
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Washington DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|