State Of Washington, Resp v. Emyll S Matos-ramos, App ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Cf,
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 71467-8-1 "11
Respondent, DIVISION ONE
V.
EMYLL S. MATOS-RAMOS, UNPUBLISHED CJ1
Appellant. FILED: February 21, 2017
Cox, J. — Emyll Matos-Ramos appeals his judgment and sentence based
on his conviction of second degree assault of a child, A.S. The trial court did not
abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Matos-Ramos's prior acts to rebut
the claim of accident for this charged crime. The child's hearsay statements
were properly admitted, and the child was competent to testify. Matos-Ramos's
challenge to the trial court's failure to give a jury instruction that he did not
request is not properly before us. But he correctly argues that the inclusion of a
domestic violence finding in the judgment, which the jury had not found, was
incorrect. We affirm Matos-Ramos's conviction, vacate the domestic violence
finding, and remand for correction of the judgment and sentence. We also deny
any request for an award of appellate costs to the State.
No. 71467-8-1/2
A.S. and his mother lived with Matos-Ramos for approximately two years.
Matos-Ramos often supervised A.S. while the mother worked. Matos-Ramos
describes his relationship with A.S. as having "its ups and downs."
A.S., then four, sustained a fractured femur in July 2010 while at home
alone with Matos-Ramos. After Matos-Ramos called 911, first responders
arrived at the scene. There was conflicting evidence on what happened.
A.S. first told police and firefighters, who responded to the 911 call, that he
had run into a table. He then told Officer Stacy Eckert that Matos-Ramos had
kicked him for not reading properly. A.S. said that he was not supposed to tell
what really happened and was supposed to say he ran into a table. On the way
to the hospital, A.S. asked the ambulance driver if the true cause of his injury
could remain secret. At trial, A.S., then seven, testified that Matos-Ramos had
kicked him during the July 2010 incident.
Matos-Ramos claimed to have been playing video games when he heard
a noise behind him during this incident. He allegedly turned to see A.S. on the
floor, near a table. Matos-Ramos then called 911.
A.S. spoke to others as well after the incident, including treatment
providers at the hospital and a forensic child interview specialist. Following
investigation, police arrested Matos-Ramos.
The State charged him with one count of second degree assault of A.S.
The information also alleged domestic violence.
I Amended Brief of Appellant at 6.
2
No. 71467-8-1/3
Before trial, the State sought to admit evidence of two prior incidents
under ER 404(b). In both, A.S. had sustained bruising while in Matos-Ramos's
care. Over Matos-Ramos's objection, the court admitted the evidence for both
incidents.
Matos-Ramos also challenged A.S.'s hearsay statements to several
witnesses. The trial court admitted these statements.
Matos-Ramos sought a hearing on A.S.'s competency. After reviewing
evidence and arguments, the court denied Matos-Ramos's motion and permitted
A.S. to testify at trial. After A.S. and his mother testified at trial, Matos-Ramos
again challenged A.S.'s competency. The trial court again rejected this claim.
A jury found Matos-Ramos guilty of second degree assault. The verdict
did not include any finding on the domestic violence allegation in the information.
The trial court entered its judgment and sentence on the jury verdict but also
included a finding that domestic violence "was[pleaded] and proved."
Matos-Ramos appeals.
ABSENCE OF ACCIDENT
Matos-Ramos argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting
evidence of his two prior acts under ER 404(b). We hold that admission of this
evidence was proper under the "absence of. . . accident" exception of this rule.2
Under ER 404(b), trial courts may not admit certain evidence. This rule
states:
2 ER 404(b).
3
No. 71467-8-1/4
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove
the character of a person in order to show action in conformity
therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such
as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident[31
We review for abuse of discretion a trial court's decision to admit
evidence.4
Other Acts
Matos-Ramos argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting
evidence of two other acts that the State offered to show a lack of accident.
Specifically, he claims the "lack of accident" exception is only relevant when a
defendant "admits he engaged in the criminal act[charged] but claims he did so
accidentally." That is not the law.
First, there is no support for this argument in the plain language of ER
404(b). Nowhere does this rule state a requirement to show either that the
accused admits engaging in the charged crime or that the accused claims he did
so accidentally. There is no reason to imply such requirements where the rule
does not expressly state them.
Second, in State v. Norlin, the supreme court held that evidence of prior
injuries is admissible under this rule in child abuse cases.5 But it is admissible
3(Emphasis added.)
4 State v. Quaale, 182 Wash. 2d 191, 196, 340 P.3d 213(2014).
5 134 Wash. 2d 570, 572, 951 P.2d 1131 (1998).
4
No. 71467-8-1/5
only if the State shows by a preponderance of the evidence a connection
between the accused and the child's prior injuries.6
Here, it is undisputed that Matos-Ramos is connected to A.S.'s prior
injuries. The unchallenged findings in the trial court's ER 404(b) ruling, which are
verities on appeal, state:
2. The State has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
A.S. had bruising to his chin and forehead on July 27, 2010 and
that this was caused by the defendant holding or pinning him down.
3. The State has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
A.S. had bruising to his lower back in approximately March of 2010
and that this was caused by the defendant hitting him with a slipper
or flip-flop.m
Third, Norlin does not impose the additional requirement to admissibility
argued here by Matos-Ramos. More importantly, no other case authority
supports the bar to admission of other acts evidence that he argues in this case.
State v. Rotti6 is instructive. Randolph Roth's wife drowned while the two
were on an outing at Lake Sammamish.6 He was the beneficiary of a large
insurance policy on her life at the time.16
6 Id.
7 Clerk's Papers at 89; In re Estate of Barnes, 185 Wash. 2d 1, 9, 367 P.3d
580 (2016).
8 75 Wash. App. 808, 881 P.2d 268 (1994).
Id. at 810.
10 Id.
5
No. 71467-8-1/6
The charges against him included first degree murder, first degree theft,
and second degree theft.11 He pleaded not guilty to all charges.12
At trial, the State sought to admit evidence regarding the earlier death of
Roth's prior wife who had died from a 300-foot fal1.13 This occurred under
suspicious circumstances while he was on an outing with her. He was also the
beneficiary of a large insurance policy on her life.14
Over Roth's objection, the trial court admitted the evidence regarding
Roth's prior wife's death.15 The court concluded Roth's position at trial was that
his current wife's death was an accident.16 Thus, admission of this evidence was
relevant to rebut that claim.17
On appeal, we affirmed." We did so because "the events surrounding
[the prior wife's] death were admissible under ER 404(b) to prove absence of
accident" in the current wife's death.19
11 Id. at 811.
12 Id. at 812.
13 Id. at 812.
14 Id. at 812-14.
15 Id. at 814-15.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 810.
19 Id. at 818.
6
No. 71467-8-1/7
In reaching this conclusion, we cited two cases: State v. Fernandez20 and
State v. Gogolin.21 We observed that in each of these precedents, a material
issue of accident arose where the defendant denied committing the current crime
and asserted "happenstance or misfortune" as the cause of the victims' injuries.22
In all these cases, the accused claimed accident in defense to the charged
crime. In no case did the accused claim that he engaged in the charged conduct,
accidentally or otherwise. To the contrary, in Roth, the defendant denied any
involvement in the charged crime.23 Nevertheless, the admission of the other
acts evidence was proper to rebut the claim of accident for the charged crime.
The same is true in this case. Matos-Ramos expressly asserted "to the
initial police and fire personnel that A.S. had hurt himself by accident."24
Moreover, his connections to the prior other acts are undisputed. The trial court
properly exercised discretion in admitting evidence of Matos-Ramos's other acts.
Matos-Ramos relies on State v. Bowen25 and State v. Hernandez26 to
support his novel argument. Neither case provides such support.
20 28 Wash. App. 944, 628 P.2d 818(1980).
21 45 Wash. App. 640, 727 P.2d 683(1986).
22 Roth, 75 Wash. App. at 819.
23 Id. at 811.
24 Clerk's Papers at 89.
25 48 Wash. App. 187, 738 P.2d316 (1987), abrogated in part on other
grounds by State v. Lough, 125 Wash. 2d 847, 889 P.2d 487(1995).
26 99 Wash. App. 312, 997 P.2d 923(1999).
7
No. 71467-8-1/8
In Bowen, James Bowen, a physician appealed his indecent liberties
conviction, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence
of two prior incidents in which he touched different female patients' breasts.27
His defense at trial was general denia1.28 Specifically, he denied touching the
current victim's private parts, even accidentally.29 The trial court held that the
prior acts evidence was inadmissible because there was no assertion of accident
by the physician.39
Notably, the defendant in that case had not admitted to the charged
conduct. So that case does not support the theory Matos-Ramos now argues.
And there is absolutely no wording in the opinion to support his novel theory in
this appeal.
At oral argument, Matos-Ramos's counsel also relied on Hernandez to
support the argument. We see nothing in that case that holds there is any
requirement for the admission of other acts evidence that the accused admits the
charged conduct but claims it was done accidentally.
In sum,there is no basis, either in the text of ER 404(b) or the case law, to
support the argument that Matos-Ramos makes. We reject it.
27 Bowen, 48 Wash. App. at 188-89.
28 Id. at 193.
28 Id.
38 Id. at 193-94.
8
No. 71467-8-1/9
Intent
We note that the trial court also admitted evidence of Matos-Ramos's
other acts as evidence of his intent. This was also proper.
Under ER 404(b), the trial court may admit evidence of a person's other
crimes, wrongs, or acts to show intent. But this evidence must be relevant to a
material issue before the jury.31 Specifically, "prior misconduct evidence is only
necessary to prove intent when intent is at issue or when proof of the doing of the
charged act does not itself conclusively establish intent."32
State v. Daniels33 is analogous to this case. There, Audie Daniels cared
for a toddler, S, while S's mother worked.34 The State charged Daniels with two
counts of second degree assault arising from incidents in June 1994 and January
1995 resulting in S's injuries.35 Daniels claimed that S sustained injuries during
the first incident by falling.36 He also claimed that S sustained injuries during the
second incident by jumping from a couch.37
State v. Olsen, 175 Wash. App. 269, 280, 309 P.3d 518(2013), aff'd 180
31
Wash. 2d 468, 325 P.3d 187(2014).
32 State v. Powell, 126 Wash. 2d 244, 262, 893 P.2d 615(1995).
33 87 Wash. App. 149, 940 P.2d 690(1997).
34 Id. at 151.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id.
9
No. 71467-8-1/10
A jury convicted Daniels and he appealed, arguing that the trial court
abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Daniels's other abuse of S.38 The
trial court admitted testimony from S's mother regarding S's bruises that
appeared after Daniels cared for S in October 1994.39 Daniels explained to S's
mother that he spanked S while going up stairs and that S hit her head on each
step.4° S's bruising from this incident was similar to her bruising in June.41
The State had to prove that Daniels recklessly inflicted substantial bodily
harm to S.42 This court stated that "the similarity" in S's bruising made "the
evidence relevant to show intent and recklessness."43 This court concluded that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence because it
"show[ed] Danielsis] knowledge of the risk of the harm."44 Additionally, the
evidence "was relevant to prove his later conduct was reckless, since it tended to
show he should have learned that such extreme discipline of a young child can
cause injury."48 As to intent, this court concluded that "the challenged evidence
38 Id. at 151, 157.
89 Id. at 157.
4° Id.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 158.
44 Id.
45 Id.
10
No. 71467-8-1/11
show[ed] that Daniels intentionally disciplined the child excessively, with
repeated physical strikes."46
Here, the State alleged that Matos-Ramos kicked A.S., ultimately causing
his fractured femur. The State had to prove that Matos-Ramos "intentionally
assault[ed]" A.S. "and thereby recklessly inflict[ed] substantial bodily harm." The
State sought to admit the evidence of A.S.'s prior bruises to prove Matos-
Ramos's intent and recklessness.
Matos-Ramos's intent was thus at issue because "proof of the doing of the
charged act does not itself conclusively establish intent."47 Specifically, the fact
that Matos-Ramos allegedly kicked A.S. does not, in itself, conclusively establish
Matos-Ramos's intent to assault A.S. and recklessly inflict substantial bodily
harm.
As in Daniels, the trial court here properly admitted evidence of Matos-
Ramos's other acts that caused A.S.'s prior injuries to show Matos-Ramos's
knowledge of the risk of the harm. The trial court recognized that whether Matos-
Ramos intended to cause A.S.'s fractured femur "[wa]s the central issue at trial."
Thus, the court concluded that the evidence "would be relevant as it does tend to
show that the injuries may have been a result of an intentional act of the
Defendant rather than an accident."
46 id.
47 Powell, 126 Wn.2d at 262.
11
No. 71467-8-1/12
Because Matos-Ramos's intent was also at issue, evidence of his other
acts was admissible to show his intent under ER 404(b). Thus, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.
CHILD HEARSAY
Matos-Ramos argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting
A.S.'s hearsay statements. We hold that the statements were properly admitted.
RCW 9A.44.120 governs the admissibility of child hearsay statements and
states in relevant part:
A statement made by a child when under the age of ten describing.
. . any act of physical abuse of the child by another that results in
substantial bodily harm.. . , not otherwise admissible by statute or
court rule, is admissible in evidence in. . . criminal proceedings...
in the courts of the state of Washington if:
(1) The court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the
presence of the jury, that the time, content, and circumstances of
the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability; and
(2)The child either:
(a) Testifies at the proceedings; or
(b) Is unavailable as a witnessr.i
A trial court has broad discretion to determine the reliability of a child
hearsay statement, as it had the opportunity to observe the child and other
witnesses." We review for abuse of discretion a trial court's decision to admit
evidence.49
In State v. Kennealy, the supreme court identified nine factors applicable
to determine the reliability of a child's out-of-court declarations:
48 State v. Swanson,62 Wn. App. 186, 191 n.1, 813 P.2d 614(1991).
48 Quaale, 182 Wash. 2d at 196.
12
No. 71467-8-1/13
(1) whether there is an apparent motive to lie,(2)the general
character of the declarant,(3) whether more than one person heard
the statements,(4)the spontaneity of the statements,(5)the timing
of the declaration and the relationship between the declarant and
the witness,(6) whether the statement contained express
assertions of past fact,(7) whether the declarant's lack of
knowledge could be established through cross-examination,(8) the
remoteness of the possibility of the declarant's recollection being
faulty, and (9) whether the surrounding circumstances suggested
the declarant misrepresented the defendant's involvement.(501
Not every factor must be satisfied in every case.51 But the factors must be
"'substantially met."52
Prior to trial in this case, Matos-Ramos challenged A.S.'s statements to
several witnesses. Here, his argument only focuses on A.S.'s statements to
Officer Eckert and Susannah Marshall, the forensic interview specialist for
children. Thus, our analysis is limited to the statements to these two individuals.
Before the trial court made its decision on this issue, it heard Officer
Eckert's testimony and reviewed several witness reports and statements. The
trial court considered all of the Ryan factors, except for factors six and seven,
stating that these factors were not meaningful to the analysis. The trial court
determined that A.S.'s statements provided sufficient indicia of reliability for
admission. On appeal, only factors one, two, four, and five are at issue.
50 151 Wash. App. 861, 880, 214 P.3d 200(2009)(citing State v. Ryan, 103
Wash. 2d 165, 175-76, 691 P.2d 197(1984)).
51 State v. Woods, 154 Wash. 2d 613, 623, 114 P.3d 1174(2005).
52Id. at 623-24 (quoting State v. Swan, 114 Wash. 2d 613, 652, 790 P.2d
610 (1990)).
13
No. 71467-8-1/14
Apparent Motive to Lie
Matos-Ramos argues that the record does not support the trial court's
conclusion that A.S. had no motive to lie to Officer Eckert and Marshall. We
disagree.
"The critical inquiry is whether the child was being truthful" when he or she
made the hearsay statements.53
Here, Officer Eckert testified pretrial about her conversation with A.S. She
questioned him about his injury near the ambulance while first responders were
present and heard the conversation. A.S. initially stated that he ran towards a
table. Additionally, A.S. told Officer Eckert that Matos-Ramos kicked him. A.S.
also told two of the first responders in the ambulance that it was a secret. The
following day, A.S. disclosed to Marshall, the forensic interview specialist for
children, that Matos-Ramos kicked him.
The trial court also considered transcripts of Detective Heather Castro's
interview with Matos-Ramos and A.S.'s mother after the incident. Detective
Castro asked Matos-Ramos if A.S. had the tendency to lie. Matos-Ramos
responded that A.S. does lie. But Matos-Ramos also explained that A.S. would
"not say something [be]cause he's afraid it's [going] to get him in trouble but not
to the point where he'll just make up something like this." Matos-Ramos further
explained his concern of how A.S. was questioned, stating that he will "just
repeat back whatever we're saying."
53 State v. Gribble, 60 Wash. App. 374, 383, 804 P.2d 634 (1991).
14
No. 71467-8-1/15
Detective Castro asked A.S.'s mother if she felt that A.S. would lie to get
Matos-Ramos into trouble. She responded that she did not know because A.S.
has lied. She also explained that in a prior incident, A.S. would not respond to
questions or admit what he had done because he thought he would get into
trouble. She further explained that A.S. repeats or picks up things said to him
and that it is hard to tell what is true.
Pretrial, Matos-Ramos argued that A.S. might have lied to avoid getting in
trouble. The trial court found that A.S.'s mother might have told him not to
explain what really happened. But the court also found no evidence that A.S.
had "anything to gain" by lying because "there was no evidence presented
indicating that [A.S.] was going to get in trouble for the incident. .. ."
Additionally, the trial court found that A.S. "feared what would happen after
disclosing that the defendant had kicked him" and "desired to keep this
information private." Thus, the trial court concluded that A.S. did not have a
motivation to lie when he made the hearsay statements.
The record supports the trial court's conclusion. In addition to Matos-
Ramos's statements discussed above, he also stated that he was surprised and
did not understand why A.S. would say that Matos-Ramos kicked him.
Similarly, A.S.'s mother stated that she did not know why A.S. would state that
Matos-Ramos kicked him.
Additionally, A.S.'s grandmother's stated to a defense investigator that
A.S.'s mother and Matos-Ramos "seem to say [that A.S. is] probably making
things up." A.S.'s grandmother also stated that A.S. generally tells the truth and
15
No. 71467-8-1/16
that she has not witnessed him "mak[e] up stories or hav[e] an active imagination
about things that go on around the house.. . ."
The record shows that A.S. may have lied and denied his involvement in
certain situations if he believed he would get into trouble. But the record also
supports the trial court's conclusion that A.S. did not have a motive to lie when he
made statements to Officer Eckert and Marshall about this incident. Nothing in
the record indicates that A.S. believed he would get into trouble before he made
the challenged statements. Rather, Officer Eckert reassured A.S. that he was
not in trouble and that she needed to know what had happened. And A.S.
promised to tell Marshall the truth during the interview.
Additionally, nothing in the record indicates that A.S. heard or picked up
something from someone else that would cause him to say that Matos-Ramos
kicked him. Thus, the record supports the trial court's conclusion that A.S. did
not have a motive to lie when he made the challenged statements.
Matos-Ramos also argues that A.S. had a motive to lie because he "bore
animosity toward" and feared Matos-Ramos. Matos-Ramos relies on A.S.'s trial
testimony where he testified that he was scared to see Matos-Ramos again and
that Matos-Ramos "always scar[ed]" him. But A.S. testified during trial, not at the
time of the court's hearsay ruling. There is nothing in this to suggest that the
ruling would have been overturned on this basis.
Matos-Ramos relies on Ryan to argue that the motive factor
"encompasses the diminished reliability that occurs" when a child makes different
16
No. 71467-8-1/17
and inconsistent statements. But that case is distinguishable and does not
support that argument.
There, the State charged John Ryan with indecent liberties with two
children.54 The children's parents questioned the children about the source of
the candy they possessed.55 The children initially claimed one source of the
candy but later stated that Ryan provided it.56 The supreme court determined
that the children had a motive to lie about the source of candy that they were not
supposed to have.57
Here, conversely, nothing in the record shows that A.S. sought to hide any
misbehavior of his. Thus, the record does not show that A.S. had the motivation
to lie when he made the challenged statements. And despite A.S's initial
statement about his injury to Officer Eckert and Marshall, the record shows that
A.S. later disclosed that Matos-Ramos kicked him. These inconsistent
statements, alone, do not establish that A.S. had the motivation to lie when he
made the challenged statements.
General Character of Declarant
Matos-Ramos argues that the record does not support the trial court's
conclusion regarding A.S.'s general character. We again disagree.
54 Ryan, 103 Wash. 2d at 167.
55 Id. at 168-69.
56 Id.
57 Id. at 176.
17
No. 71467-8-1/18
This factor focuses on the child's reputation for truthfulness.58
Here, the trial court found that A.S. has a history of hyperactivity and has
refused to admit things to avoid getting into trouble. The trial court also found
that A.S. would sometimes "pick things up and make them his own story." Most
importantly, the trial court found that A.S. was "an intelligent child" who did "not
have a history of lying" and that "lying would be out-of-character for him." Thus,
the court concluded that this factor had been satisfied. The trial court was in the
best position to weigh properly the competing evidence.
Although the record does not support one of the trial court's findings, the
record supports the trial court's decision. Specifically, first responder Genessa
Olson allegedly overheard A.S. tell Officer Eckert that he was told to say that he
ran into the table. Thus, the record does not support the trial court's finding that
there was "no evidence that anybody told [A.S.] what to say" regarding the
incident.
But the record supports the trial court's conclusion that this factor had
been satisfied. Although the record shows that A.S. has lied to avoid getting into
trouble, his grandmother stated that he generally told the truth. Matos-Ramos
also stated that A.S. would "not say something [be]cause he's afraid it's [going] to
get him in trouble but not to the point where he'll just make up something like
this." A.S.'s mother similarly stated that she did not know why A.S. would state
that Matos-Ramos kicked him.
58 Kennealv, 151 Wash. App. at 881.
18
No. 71467-8-1/19
Thus, the trial court's erroneous finding made no difference to the
outcome. These facts support the trial court's conclusion that this factor had
been satisfied.
Spontaneity
Matos-Ramos argues that A.S.'s statements to Officer Eckert were not
spontaneous. We agree.
Statements made in response to questioning are spontaneous so long as
the questions are not leading or suggestive.59
Pretrial, Officer Eckert testified to her conversation with A.S. Near the
ambulance, she asked A.S. what had happened to his leg. A.S. replied that he
hit himself "on the table, running." Officer Eckert then asked: "Did anyone give
you any owies today." A.S. responded:"Yes. My dad just kicked me" and
pointed to his leg. Officer Eckert then asked why his dad kicked him, and A.S.
responded:"For not reading. He kept kicking me." The trial court concluded that
A.S.'s statements to Officer Eckert were spontaneous because they were made
in response to open-ended, non-suggestive, and non-leading questions.
Matos-Ramos argues that the trial court incorrectly found that no one told
A.S. what to say. This is true as we discussed above, but irrelevant to the court's
ultimate conclusion. Matos-Ramos did tell A.S. to tell the table story. There is no
evidence that anyone else tried to put words in A.S.'s mouth. So, this erroneous
finding regarding spontaneity made no difference to the ultimate outcome
regarding A.S.'s hearsay statements.
59 Id. at 883.
19
No. 71467-8-1/20
Timing and Relationship
Lastly, Matos-Ramos argues that A.S.'s statements to Officer Eckert were
unreliable under this factor. We disagree.
This factor focuses on "the timing of the declaration and the relationship
between the declarant and the witness."6° The reliability of a child's statement
may be enhanced when the testifying witness is in a position of trust with the
child.61 Additionally, this court has recognized that "[a]s long as there are law
enforcement officers... investigating child abuse,... a child's statements will
almost always be made after professionals become aware of the abuse."62 This
fact does not necessarily diminish the reliability of a child's statements, and in
some situations, the presence of a police officer or nurse may enhance the
statement's reliability.63
Here, the trial court found that A.S.'s statements to Officer Eckert were
"contemporaneous with the incident." The court also found that Officer Eckert
was a "professional witness" and stated that it did not have "any concern"
regarding her lack of objectivity. The court then concluded that the "timing of
these statements shows their reliability." We agree.
60
Ryan, 103 Wash. 2d at 176 (quoting State v. Parris, 98 Wash. 2d 140, 146,
654 P.2d 77(1982)).
61 Kennealy, 151 Wash. App. at 884.
62 State v. Young,62 Wn. App. 895, 901, 802 P.2d 829 (1991).
63 See id.; Kennealy, 151 Wash. App. at 884.
20
No. 71467-8-1/21
Matos-Ramos does not dispute the timing of A.S.'s statement to Officer
Eckert. Rather, he argues that A.S. had no prior relationship with Officer Eckert
and that the officer's position would "likely trigger a readiness to lie to avoid
getting in trouble[] and a willingness to say what the officer apparently wanted to
hear .. . ."
This argument is not supported by any citation to authority and is mere
speculation. Accordingly, we reject it.
In sum, the record supports the trial court's conclusions as to the first,
second, and fifth Ryan factors at issue here. Because the factors are
substantially met, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting A.S.'s
hearsay statements to Officer Eckert and Marshall.
CHILD COMPETENCY
Matos-Ramos argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding
A.S. competent to testify. We disagree.
Witnesses are presumed competent to testify until proved otherwise by a
preponderance of evidence.64 RCW 5.60.050 provides that witnesses are not
competent to testify if they are "of unsound mind" or are "incapable of receiving
just impressions of the facts, respecting which they are examined, or of relating
them truly."65
64 State v. Brousseau, 172 Wash. 2d 331, 341, 259 P.3d 209 (2011).
65 RCW 5.60.050.
21
No. 71467-8-1/22
The party challenging a witness's competency bears the burden of proving
the witness's incompetency.66 Courts are not required to "examine a child
witness regarding the particular issues and facts of the case to determine
competency."67 Additionally, a witness's competence is presumed throughout
the proceedings but may be challenged at any time.66
"The responsibility for determining a witness'[s] competency rests with the
trial court, who ``saw the witness, noticed her manner[,] and considered her
capacity and intelligence.'"69
We review for abuse of discretion a trial court's determination of a child
witness's competency.79 We examine the entire record in making this
determination, even though a trial court determines a witness's competency
pretrial 71
In State v. Allen, the supreme court established the "true test of the
competency of a young child," which consists of the following factors:
(1) an understanding of the obligation to speak the truth on the
witness stand;(2)the mental capacity at the time of the occurrence
concerning which he is to testify, to receive an accurate impression
68 Brousseau, 172 Wash. 2d at 341.
87 State v. Avila, 78 Wash. App. 731, 736, 899 P.2d 11(1995)(quoting State
v. Przvbylski, 48 Wash. App. 661, 665, 739 P.2d 1203(1987)).
88 Brousseau, 172 Wash. 2d at 341.
State v. Johnson, 28 Wash. App. 459,
69 Avila, 78 Wash. App. at 735 (quoting
461,624 P.2d 213(1981), aff'd, 96 Wash. 2d 926 (1982)).
79 Brousseau, 172 Wash. 2d at 340.
71 Id.
22
No. 71467-8-1/23
of it; (3)a memory sufficient to retain an independent recollection of
the occurrence;(4) the capacity to express in words his memory of
the occurrence; and (5) the capacity to understand simple
questions about it.[72]
All five factors must be met before a child witness can be declared a
competent witness." Additionally, inconsistencies in a child witness's testimony
go only to the child's credibility, not to admissibility of the testimony.74
Here, pretrial, Matos-Ramos challenged A.S.'s competency and requested
a competency hearing. The court considered the same evidence that it
considered for the hearsay issue and found A.S. to be "very intelligent," "playful(,]
and somewhat distracted in demeanor." The court denied Matos-Ramos's
motion for a competency hearing and permitted A.S. to testify at trial.
After A.S. and his mother testified at trial, Matos-Ramos again challenged
A.S.'s competency, arguing that he did not take seriously the oath to testify
truthfully. Matos-Ramos also expressed concern about A.S.'s ability to testify
truthfully. The trial court disagreed, ruling that A.S. was competent to testify.
On appeal, only the first and third Allen factors are at issue.
Obligation to Speak the Truth
Matos-Ramos argues that A.S. did not understand his obligation to tell the
truth. We disagree.
72 State v. Allen, 70 Wn.2d 690,692, 424 P.2d 1021 (1967).
73 In re Dependency of A.E.P., 135 Wash. 2d 208, 223, 956 P.2d 297(1998).
74 Woods, 154 Wash. 2d at 621.
23
No. 71467-8-1/24
A child's promise to tell the truth satisfies this factor.75 And "[a] child's
inability to express an understanding of the meaning of truth does not affect his
competency as long as he possesses a sufficient understanding of truth to insure
his testimony is not the result of fabrication or imagination."76
Here, during the pretrial proceedings, the trial court referred to A.S.'s
interview with Marshall. There, Marshall asked A.S. a series of "real/pretend"
questions and asked him if it were real or pretend that it was snowing in the
room. A.S. responded:
[A.S.]: Real.
S. MARSHALL: Is it snowing in this room right now?
[A.S.]: Nope.
MARSHALL: Oh okay so is it real. . .
[A.S.]:'Cause it's...
MARSHALL:.. . is it real or pretend?
[A.S 1. pre, pretend.177]
The trial court found that A.S.'s answers "were made in a playful or
teasing type of manner rather than a manner which would cause the [c]ourt
concern that this child really believed it was snowing in the room."
A.S. was seven years old when he testified and promised to tell the truth.
When the prosecutor asked A.S. if he knew the difference between a truth and a
lie, he responded:"No." The prosecutor then tested A.S.'s ability to distinguish a
truth from a lie and asked:
75State v. S.J.W., 149 Wash. App. 912, 925, 206 P.3d 355 (2009), aff'd on
other grounds, 170 Wash. 2d 92, 239 P.3d 568(2010).
76 State v. Sims,4 Wn. App. 188, 190, 480 P.2d 228 (1971).
77 Trial Exhibit 31 at 12.
24
No. 71467-8-1/25
Q: If I said my hair is green, what would you say?
A: It's not green.
Q: What color is it?
A: I don't know.
Q: You don't know?
A: No.
Q: If I said my hair is orange, is that true?
A: No.
Q: Is that a lie?
A: Yeah.r781
During cross-examination, A.S. stated that he knew the difference
between a truth and a lie. When asked to explain his previous answer to the
prosecutor, A.S. responded: "I don't understand."
After A.S. testified, Matos-Ramos challenged A.S.'s competency again.
The trial court found that A.S. "underst[ood] the difference between truth and a
lie, although sometimes the child may choose to lie."
The record supports the trial court's conclusion that A.S. was competent to
testify. Contrary to A.S.'s initial statement during his testimony, the record shows
that he understood the difference between a truth and a lie because he
successfully completed the truth and lie exercises with Marshall. Marshall also
used certain questions to determine A.S.'s ability to understand the
consequences resulting from lies. For example, Marshall asked A.S. to select
whether a lying character or a truthful character would get into trouble. A.S.
selected the lying character as the one to get into trouble.
78 Report of Proceedings Vol. V(December 5, 2013) at 484-85.
25
No. 71467-8-1/26
Overall, the first Allen factor has been satisfied because A.S. understood
the difference between a truth and a lie, understood the negative consequences
resulting from telling a lie, and promised to tell the truth before testifying.
Matos-Ramos argues that A.S. did not understand his obligation to tell the
truth, relying on A.S.'s inconsistent statement regarding his understanding of the
difference between a truth and a lie. Matos-Ramos also relies on A.S.'s allegedly
"false[]" testimony, where he stated that he did not remember how he sustained
his injury and stated that he pretends to sleep at night. But this testimony does
not establish by a preponderance of evidence that A.S did not understand his
obligation to tell the truth.
As previously stated, the record shows that A.S. knew the difference
between a truth and a lie, despite his initial statement to the contrary, because he
successfully completed the truth and lie exercises with Marshall.
Additionally, Matos-Ramos's allegation that A.S. made a false statement
regarding his sleep does not, by itself, establish that he failed to understand his
obligation to tell the truth. Matos-Ramos fails to explain otherwise.
Further, the fact that A.S. initially testified that he did not remember how
he sustained his injury does not establish, by itself, that he failed to understand
his obligation to tell the truth. Rather, this demonstrates his discomfort while
testifying due to the many people present and "staring" at him.
More importantly, the fact that A.S. initially testified that he did not
remember how he sustained his injury before he actually stated that Matos-
Ramos kicked him shows that A.S. made an inconsistent statement. And any
26
No. 71467-8-1/27
inconsistencies in a child witness's testimony go only to the child's credibility, not
to admissibility of the child's testimony.79
Independent Recollection of Incident
Matos-Ramos argues that A.S. did not have an independent recollection
of the incident. We disagree.
A child's ability to recall the incident satisfies this factor.8° "[A] child's
reluctance to testify about specific acts of abuse does not render him or her
incompetent."81
Here, pretrial, Matos-Ramos argued that the passage of time since the
incident raised a "red flag." The trial court responded:"[A] simple passage of
time is not affirmative evidence of incompetence. Of course, anybody can have
difficulties remembering specifics over the time. But, that doesn't... constitute
an affirmative showing of incompetence and is something that can be tested on
cross-examination."
After A.S. testified, the court found that A.S. made conflicting statements.
But it also found that A.S. had "a pretty impressive ability to recall" the events
that took place. The court also stated that any "inability to recall details or conflict
can go to the weight of the testimony rather than to the competence of the child."
The record establishes A.S.'s ability to independently recall the events
surrounding his injury. A.S. testified about these events, explaining what he was
79 Woods, 154 Wash. 2d at 621.
90 See S.J.W., 149 Wash. App. at 925-26.
91 State v. Carlson, 61 Wash. App. 865, 875, 812 P.2d 536(1991).
27
No. 71467-8-1/28
doing, where he was sitting before the incident, and who else was there. A.S.
also described the incident in detail. A.S. further testified to events after the
incident, including Matos-Ramos's call for the ambulance, the ambulance ride,
and where he lived afterwards.
Based upon A.S.'s testimony, the trial court properly determined that A.S.
could independently remember the incident. Thus, the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in concluding that A.S. was competent to testify.
Matos-Ramos argues that A.S. did not independently recall the incident.
He focuses on A.S.'s inability to independently remember that he lived with
Matos-Ramos at the time of his injury. Matos-Ramos also focuses on A.S.'s "I
don't know" response when asked how he sustained his injury.
But A.S.'s "I don't know" response does not establish that A.S. could not
independently recall the incident. As previously stated, this response
demonstrates his reluctance to explain what happened before he actually
explained the circumstances. Additionally, A.S.'s inability to independently
remember that he lived with Matos-Ramos does not establish that A.S. could not
independently recall the incident. His detailed testimony about the
circumstances surrounding his injury shows otherwise.
JURY INSTRUCTION
Matos-Ramos argues that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that all
twelve jurors must be involved during deliberations violated his right to a fair trial
and unanimous verdict. He did not request this instruction at trial. Because he
28
No. 71467-8-1/29
fails to establish that he falls within the narrow exception of RAP 2.5(a)for
unpreserved claims, we do not reach the merits of this argument.
Under RAP 2.5(a), a party may raise for the first time on appeal "a
manifest error affecting a constitutional right."82 The party has the burden to
show this.83
Manifest Error
Matos-Ramos argues that the trial court's error is manifest. Not so.
To show such an error,.a party must"make a plausible showing that the
error resulted in actual prejudice, which means that the claimed error had
practical and identifiable consequences in the trial."84 "If the facts necessary to
adjudicate the claimed error are not in the record on appeal, no actual prejudice
is shown and the error is not manifest."85
Here, Matos-Ramos argues that "[tihe jury was essentially ignorant of how
to reach a constitutionally unanimous verdict." He contends that "[n]othing
informed the jurors [that] they could not deliberate in small groups over lunch," or
while some jurors were absent while using the restroom.
82RAP 2.5(a)(3); see also State v. Lamar, 180 Wash. 2d 576, 582, 327 P.3d
46 (2014).
83 Lamar, 180 Wash. 2d at 583.
84 Id.
85 State v. McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d 322, 333, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).
29
No. 71467-8-1/30
This record shows that the court gave the jury unchallenged instructions
on their duty to deliberate. But there is nothing in this record to show what went
on in the jury room. We simply do not know whether any of the claims he makes
on appeal are real in this case. Absent such a showing, his assertions are
entirely speculative. There is no showing of any manifest error. Accordingly, we
do not reach the merits of this argument.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FINDING
Matos-Ramos argues that the trial court improperly included a domestic
violence finding in the judgment and sentence. The State properly concedes this
error.
Here, the judgment and sentence includes a domestic violence finding and
provides that domestic violence "was [pleaded] and proved." While the
information alleged domestic violence, the jury never made such a finding.
The proper remedy for this error is to remand to the trial court to correct
it.86 We do so here.
COSTS
Matos-Ramos argues that this court should decline to award the State
appellate costs should the State prevail on appeal. We hold that there shall be
no award of costs on appeal to the State.
86 In re Pers. Restraint of Mayer, 128 Wash. App. 694, 701-02, 117 P.3d 353
(2005); see also CrR 7.8(a).
30
No. 71467-8-1/31
RCW 10.73.160(1) gives appellate courts discretion to decline to impose
appellate costs on appea1.87 Under State v. Sinclair, there is a presumption that
indigency continues unless the record shows otherwise.88
Here, the trial court granted Matos-Ramos's motion to seek appellate
review at public expense. Nothing in this record overcomes the presumption of
his indigence. Thus, an award to the State for appellate costs is inappropriate
under these circumstances.
We affirm the second degree assault conviction, vacate the domestic
violence finding, and remand for correction of the judgment and sentence. We
also deny any request for an award of appellate costs to the State.
WE CONCUR:
87 State v. Nolan, 141 Wash. 2d 620, 629, 8 P.3d 300(2000).
88 192 Wash. App. 380, 393, 367 P.3d 612, review denied, 185 Wash. 2d 1034
(2016).
31