State Of Washington, V. Cesar Chicas-carballo

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 82054-1-I
)
Respondent, ) DIVISION ONE
)
v. ) PUBLISHED OPINION
)
CESAR CHICAS CARBALLO, )
)
Appellant. )
)
HAZELRIGG, J. — Cesar Chicas Carballo and his co-defendant were both
convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder
following a joint jury trial. The co-defendant’s girlfriend was the key witness in the
State’s case and provided a detailed account of the crime and its planning.
Requests from both defendants to cross-examine her about her immigration status
as it related to a possible motive to lie were considered in the context of ER 413,
but denied. Chicas Carballo appealed, arguing the court improperly allowed un-
redacted statements by his co-defendant in violation of Chicas Carballo’s right to
confrontation under United States v. Bruton.1 He further asserts that the denial of
his request to explore immigration matters as to this critical witness violated his
Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. Because the court’s rulings on the
1 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968).
No. 82054-1-I/2
ER 413 issue constitute reversible error, we need not reach Chicas Carballo’s
other challenges on appeal. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
FACTS
In April of 2016, a couple saw a body on a street in Tacoma and called 911.
Police responded to the area soon after and located a man, later identified as
Samuel Cruces Vasquez, bleeding heavily, but alive. There was a sport utility
vehicle (SUV) parked nearby that was still running with its driver door open and
blood inside the vehicle. There was also a butterfly knife on the ground, blue latex
gloves inside the SUV, and a shoe pinched between the SUV and another vehicle.
Cruces Vasquez was later pronounced dead at the hospital.
About three weeks after the incident, a witness contacted police and told
them what he had observed. The witness explained that he was driving when
someone exited a car and signaled for him to stop. He stated that he kept driving
out of safety concerns. He looked in his rearview mirror as he drove away and
saw two people emerge from the vehicle. He said one of them beat the person
who had signaled him to stop.
Surveillance footage from a nearby business captured some of the events
that night. In one video, a woman, later identified as Mayra Karina Calderon
Flores,2 could be seen walking on the street and another individual later walked to
the SUV. After that, there appeared to be movement inside the SUV. Cruces
Vasquez could be seen exiting the SUV and was then run over by an unidentified
2 Ms. Calderon Flores is referred to as Flores throughout the record. For clarity, we will use
that portion of her last name to identify her as well.
-2-
No. 82054-1-I/3
car. The autopsy revealed Cruces Vasquez had been stabbed eight times and
suffered blunt trauma injuries. Blood from the knife found on the ground matched
Cruces Vasquez’s DNA3. The shoe located between the vehicles was connected
to Jose Jonael Ayala Reyes by his own admission and DNA from inside a latex
glove found in the vehicle was identified as that of another man involved in the
incident. None of the physical evidence collected in the case was linked to Cesar
Chicas Carballo.
Investigation determined that Cruces Vasquez had clocked out of work at
10:10 p.m. on the night of the crime and that he had received numerous calls and
texts from Ayala Reyes’ phone number. Ayala Reyes and Cruces Vasquez had
worked together at a pizza restaurant. Earlier in April, Cruces Vasquez’ brother
helped Ayala Reyes get a bus ticket to California. Ayala Reyes had told Cruces
Vasquez’ brother that he was in the MS-134 gang and that he provided money to
people in California when he received his paychecks. He said the amounts were
around $20 or $30. Ayala Reyes claimed the money was later sent by the gang
members in California to El Salvador.
Ayala Reyes was taken into custody in July 2016. He admitted to being one
of a number of participants in the stabbing of Cruces Vasquez, but didn’t provide
names of the others involved. Ayala Reyes acknowledged the knife found at the
scene was his and that he had stabbed Cruces Vasquez one time in the leg, but
denied killing him. He also claimed that Cruces Vasquez sold drugs.
3 Deoxyribonucleic Acid.
4 Mara Salvatrucha 13.
-3-
No. 82054-1-I/4
Ayala Reyes was dating Flores. Flores was also questioned by police about
the stabbing. After extensive police interrogation, Flores provided the street
names of the individuals involved: Sombra, Tas, and Sicario. After police showed
her a photo of Chicas Carballo, Flores identified him as the individual named Tas.
Flores’ identification of the suspects by name and photograph, and the further
explanations she provided, did not occur until police threatened to arrest her and
indicated she might be removed from the United States if she didn’t tell them what
occurred. Flores similarly identified Juan Jose Gaitan Vasquez as Sombra. The
DNA from the blue gloves recovered at the crime scene was linked to Gaitan
Vasquez and he separately pleaded guilty to charges stemming from Cruces
Vasquez’ death. A detective with the Tacoma Police Department later identified
Sicario as Edenilson Misael Alfaro.
At trial, Flores testified that Ayala Reyes sent money to Sicario to support
gang activity. She explained that he sent the money “[b]ecause of drugs . . . [Ayala
Reyes] had” and she later turned over money transfer receipts to law enforcement.
The receipts indicated that Ayala Reyes wired money to Chicas Carballo in
California in amounts of $200, $300, and $260 on June 6, 25, and July 7 of 2016.
Flores testified that Ayala Reyes rented an apartment in April 2016 and that
she was present in the apartment when she heard him talking with Tas, Sombra,
and Sicario about killing Cruces Vasquez. Flores claimed that all of the individuals
involved were members of MS-13. She described Sicario as the “main one.”
Flores had never seen Sicario prior to the date she heard them discussing the plan.
She further testified that Ayala Reyes went to California a few weeks before the
-4-
No. 82054-1-I/5
killing and met with Sicario because of drugs. She asserted that the apartment
had been rented when Ayala Reyes returned from California specifically so that
gang members could come there, but that it was also intended as the residence
for her and Ayala Reyes.
Flores said on the day of the attack on Cruces Vasquez, Ayala Reyes was
picked up by three men in a truck. She later went to the apartment and, while
cooking for them, heard the four men discussing how they would kill Cruces
Vasquez. She testified that Sombra said he was going to stab Cruces Vasquez.
Ayala Reyes was to lure Cruces Vasquez by calling him. Flores claimed that Ayala
Reyes and Sombra were to do the killing because they were not in the gang. The
men grabbed gloves provided by Ayala Reyes. Flores said she had seen two
knives; one a butterfly knife and the other a knife that Sombra passed around. The
four men and Flores left the apartment to go to the location where the killing was
to occur. She indicated that Chicas Carballo was the driver. Flores said that when
the men left to meet Cruces Vasquez the night of the attack, she initially rode with
them, but was dropped off before they reached their destination and she walked
home.
Later that night, Flores went to the apartment to meet Ayala Reyes and saw
Tas, Sombra, and Sicario leave in their vehicle. She observed blood on the
passenger side door. Ayala Reyes recounted the killing to Flores claiming he
stabbed Cruces Vasquez in the leg, that Sombra stabbed him in the neck, and that
they beat him on the street, ultimately killing him. Flores thought the killing was
-5-
No. 82054-1-I/6
because Cruces Vasquez sold drugs and that Ayala Reyes had killed him to be
part of “La Mara.”
In March of 2017, Chicas Carballo was interrogated by law enforcement in
California. He maintained that he drove to Washington with two others based on
an offer of a construction job. Chicas Carballo stated that he did not remember
the specifics as to the timing or precise destination of the trip to Washington. He
indicated one of the men was named “Juan,” “Jose,” or “Juan Jose,” and that he
met this man at MacArthur Park in Los Angeles when he was looking for work. He
stated that he did not know the other individual who rode with them in the car and
that when they arrived in Washington, Juan/Jose repeatedly called the man who
was offering the construction job. Chicas Carballo said at one point he was told to
wait in the car and that Juan/Jose left and came back, reporting that he could not
reach the man offering the work. He said that the three men then went back to
California. Chicas Carballo asserted that he had been tricked into going to
Washington for work and denied knowing anything about the killing.
After denial of motions to sever their cases, Chicas Carballo and Ayala
Reyes proceeded to a joint trial as co-defendants. Chicas Carballo’s defense
theory was that Flores lied and that the State had failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he was involved in the killing. The jury returned guilty
verdicts on all counts for both Chicas Carballo and Ayala Reyes.5 6 The jury also
5 This included a separate count of second degree felony murder, which was later vacated
on double jeopardy grounds.
6 This court recently affirmed Ayala Reyes’ convictions in an unpublished opinion. State v.
Ayala Reyes, No. 81393-5-I (Wash. Ct. App. July 27, 2020) (unpublished),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/813935.pdf.
-6-
No. 82054-1-I/7
returned special verdicts concluding that a deadly weapon was used in the
commission of the crimes and finding a gang aggravator for the offenses. The
court did not impose an exceptional sentence for Chicas Carballo based on the
gang aggravator, but did impose a total of 608 months confinement, running the
base sentence for the two serious violent offenses and their corresponding terms
for deadly weapon enhancements consecutively. Chicas Carballo now appeals.
ANALYSIS
Chicas Carballo asserts that a violation of his right to confrontation by the
trial court’s failure to properly apply the Bruton test to Ayala Reyes’ statements to
police which were introduced at trial, violation of his Sixth Amendment right to
present a defense due to improper application of ER 413, and cumulative error
deprived him of a fair trial. In a statement of additional grounds for review, Chicas
Carballo also claims that he is entitled to a new trial based on Flores’ dishonesty.
As we find the Sixth Amendment/ER 413 challenge dispositive, we need not reach
the other assignments of error.7
Chicas Carballo avers that his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense
was violated when the trial court refused to allow him to introduce evidence during
her testimony of a potential motive for Flores to lie. This court reviews general
limitations on the scope of cross-examination for abuse of discretion. State v. Lee,
188 Wn.2d 473, 486, 396 P.3d 316 (2017). A trial court necessarily abuses its
7 If the State chooses to introduce Ayala Reyes’ statements to police upon retrial, any
potential Bruton issue could be comprehensively addressed in the trial court with briefing and
proposed redactions, consistent with case law, which would provide a sufficient record for review
on any subsequent appeal.
-7-
No. 82054-1-I/8
discretion if the ruling is based on erroneous interpretation of the law or the court
fails to recognize that it has discretion. State v. Gaines, 16 Wn. App 2d 52, 57,
479 P.3d 735, 737 (2021). However, a claim for denial of one’s Sixth Amendment
right to put on a defense is reviewed de novo. State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713,
719, 230 P.3d 576 (2010).
“The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the
right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations.” Chambers v.
Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1973). The
evidence a defendant seeks to admit “must be of at least minimal relevance.” State
v. Darden, 145 Wn.2d 612, 622, 41 P.3d 1189 (2002). If the proposed evidence
is relevant, it is the prosecution’s burden to establish that the evidence is so
prejudicial as to disrupt the fairness of the fact-finding process at trial. Jones, 168
Wn.2d at 720. The State’s interest in excluding prejudicial evidence must be
balanced against the defendant’s need for the evidence proposed and relevant
information can be withheld only if the prosecution’s interest outweighs the
defendant’s need. Id. “We must remember that ‘the integrity of the truth[ ]finding
process and [a] defendant’s right to a fair trial’ are important considerations.” Id.(quoting State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1, 14, 659 P.2d 514 (1983)). Our supreme
court has “therefore noted that for evidence of high probative value ‘it appears no
state interest can be compelling enough to preclude its introduction consistent with
the Sixth Amendment and [article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution].’”
Id. (quoting Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d at 16) (alterations in original).
-8-
No. 82054-1-I/9
The primary and most important component of the right to confrontation is
that of meaningful cross-examination of an adverse witness. Darden, 145 Wn.2d
at 620. “Confrontation therefore helps assure the accuracy of the fact-finding
process.” Id. This right to confront must be “zealously guarded.” Id. “The right to
cross-examine for bias is especially important where . . . that bias stems from a
witness’s motive to cooperate with the State.” State v. Orn, __ Wn. 2d __, 482
P.3d 913, 919 (2021). “[T]he more essential the witness is to the prosecution’s
case, the more latitude the defense should be given to explore fundamental
elements such as motive, bias, [or] credibility.” Darden, 145 Wn.2d at 619(alterations in original).
Although Chicas Carballo was allowed to impeach Flores with various
inconsistencies in her police interview and trial testimony, he was prevented from
exploring her possible motive to lie. This left the State in a position in which it could
shade the jury’s perception of why Flores might change her story. The court,
prosecution, and defense were all aware that Flores was not a United States
citizen and therefore was subject to removal under federal immigration law.
However, the trial court did not allow Chicas Carballo to cross-examine her about
her immigration status as it related to a possible deportation threat by law
enforcement that was uttered during her interrogation. Flores was an essential
witness in the State’s case against Chicas Carballo, particularly in light of the
absence of any other direct evidence that connected him to the crimes.
Before trial, Ayala Reyes moved under ER 413 to introduce evidence of
Flores’ immigration status as motive to lie, but on a slightly different ground than
-9-
No. 82054-1-I/10
later urged by Chicas Carballo. The trial court denied Ayala Reyes’ motion, but
indicated in its oral and written ruling that the matter could be revisited based on
any additional evidence that came out at trial. Chicas Carballo did not present a
pretrial motion, but the court based its denial of his midtrial request on its earlier
ruling on Ayala Reyes’ ER 413 motion, specifically referencing the consideration
of additional evidence. The court stated “I denied a motion to allow that testimony
without prejudice should additional evidence be provided. I’m not hearing any
additional evidence. It sounds like the same issue as was already provided.”
ER 413 had gone into effect approximately one month before the trial
began. ER 413 provides:
(a) Criminal Cases; Evidence Generally Inadmissible. In any
criminal matter, evidence of a party’s or a witness’ immigration status
shall not be admissible unless immigration status is an essential fact
to prove an element of, or a defense to, the criminal offense with
which the defendant is charged, or to show bias or prejudice of a
witness pursuant to ER 607. The following procedure shall apply
prior to any such proposed uses of immigration status evidence to
show bias or prejudice of a witness:
(1) A written pretrial motion shall be made that includes an
offer of proof of the relevancy of the proposed evidence.
(2) The written motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit or
affidavits in which the offer of proof shall be stated.
(3) If the court finds that the offer of proof is sufficient, the court
shall order a hearing outside the presence of the jury.
(4) The court may admit evidence of immigration status to
show bias or prejudice if it finds that the evidence is reliable and
relevant, and that its probative value outweighs the prejudicial nature
of evidence of immigration status.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to exclude
evidence that would result in the violation of a defendant’s
constitutional rights.
While Chicas Carballo did not present a pretrial motion, or formally join in
Ayala Reyes’ motion, he did make his position known to the court at the time it was
- 10 -
No. 82054-1-I/11
argued. The ruling on Ayala Reyes’ motion was expressly left open for new
evidence, but more importantly, by relying on it to deny Chicas Carballo’s midtrial
request to cross-examine Flores about her immigration status, the trial judge
bound Chicas Carballo to both Ayala Reyes’ motion and the court’s ruling on such.
This particular posture creates dissonance in the trial court’s two separate rulings
against Chicas Carballo on this issue. After trial, Chicas Carballo filed a motion
for relief from judgment based in part on the court’s denial of his midtrial request
to examine Flores’ immigration status. The judge denied the motion for relief from
judgment on the basis that Chicas Carballo had failed to file a pretrial motion under
ER 413, despite the fact that the judge had treated Ayala Reyes’ motion as Chicas
Carballo’s for purposes of the midtrial ruling.
We find guidance in an opinion by Division Two of this court in our review
of evidentiary rulings in the context of the right to present a defense. In State v.
Grant, the accused argued his right to put on a defense was violated when the trial
court denied his request to present an alibi witness due to failure to strictly comply
with the procedural requirements set out by statute.8 10 Wn. App. 468, 470–72,
519 P.2d 261 (1974). Prior to the start of trial, the prosecution made a timely
demand for the identities of any alibi witnesses the defense expected to call. On
the last day of the trial, defense sought to present testimony from newly discovered
alibi witnesses. The trial court denied the request as untimely under the statute
which imposed procedural requirements for alibi witnesses. Id. at 471–72. On
review, the trial court’s ruling was rejected on the basis that a procedural rule
8
At the time of Grant, procedures as to alibi defenses were set out by statute. They are
now contained in CrR 4.7(b)(2)(xii).
- 11 -
No. 82054-1-I/12
cannot be utilized to infringe on an individual’s constitutional right to present a
defense. Id. at 474–75. Division Two noted that the evidence sought by the
defense was highly relevant, noting that it was “evidence which, on its face and if
believed by a jury, would be seriously supportive of [Grant’s] asserted alibi.” Id. at
472. The court went on to
deem it imperative that in the absence of totally inexcusable neglect
no criminal case should be submitted to the trier of the facts without
all available material facts being made known to the trier of the facts,
not only to the end that substantial justice shall be done, but also
because in performing its high function in the best way, justice must
satisfy the appearance of justice.
Id. at 474. Grant only reinforces that it has long been the law in our state that rules
which impose procedural requirements cannot be wielded as a sword by the State
to defeat the constitutional rights of an accused in a criminal trial.
After oral argument in this matter, our supreme court issued its opinion in
State v. Orn, 482 P.3d 913. Orn was convicted of attempted first degree murder.
Id. at 918. The victim testified at trial, but Orn’s attempt to cross-examine him
about bias was restricted by the trial court. Id. The victim had worked as a
confidential informant for the Kent Police Department in exchange for law
enforcement declining to refer certain felonies to the prosecutor for filing against
him. Id. Orn’s examination of the victim on this matter was limited to one question,
which left the jury with incomplete information and potentially incorrect inferences
from which to assess the witness’ credibility. Id. at 918, 921. The victim was a key
witness for the State as “the only testifying eyewitness to the shooting” and, as
such, the Supreme Court found the trial court abused its discretion as to the
evidentiary ruling, which resulted in a violation of Orn’s Sixth Amendment rights.
- 12 -
No. 82054-1-I/13
Id. at 921–22. However, the error was ultimately deemed harmless in light of the
wealth of other “[u]ncontradicted evidence [which] linked Orn to the shooting.” Id.
at 923 (alterations in orginal).
As in Grant and Orn, the court here was aware that the evidence sought by
the defense was highly relevant. Chicas Carballo’s counsel made the midtrial
request to explore Flores’ immigration status after much of her direct examination
had been presented. His request was discussed outside the presence of jury and
he reiterated his specific focus on Flores’ potential motive to lie based on threats
of deportation by law enforcement during her original interview with detectives.
The court indicated its position that no new information had been presented since
it had issued the conditional ruling on Ayala Reyes’ pretrial motion. Chicas
Carballo’s attorney responded by stating, “I think it’s very relevant that she would
stick to her guns for 234 pages [of transcribed statements] that she didn’t know
anything, and after threats of jail and immigration issues and leading questions[,]
she finally remembers something.”
The court stated it was unwilling to alter its prior ruling unless new
information came to light, which clearly demonstrates that the first ruling was not
final. In response to the midtrial request by Chicas Carballo, the court said, “Unless
she says something different today, or the reason I made this up is because I was
threatened by deportation, that wouldn’t appear to be new information.” The State
appeared to recognize that some of the information about her status was already
before the court and said Flores was unlikely to say anything because she was
concerned about immigration issues. This comment by the State, coupled with its
- 13 -
No. 82054-1-I/14
later request to explore Flores’ status for different reasons in its own examination,
suggests that this topic was highly relevant to the case and that Chicas Carballo
should have been allowed to explore such in the furtherance of his defense. It also
reinforces that the court and the State both had the benefit of the same information
that would have been provided in an offer of proof if Chicas Carballo had precisely
complied with the procedural requirements of ER 413. This further highlights the
lack of prejudice to the State from Chicas Carballo’s request to explore the motive
to lie as it related to his ability to put on a defense.
In her testimony, Flores conceded to lying and even went so far as admitting
during cross-examination that she was fearful she might be arrested and that she
was pregnant and did not “want something bad for [her] son.” Had she been
confronted with the deportation threat and its applicability to her because of her
immigration status, a jury could reasonably find that her fear of arrest and for her
son’s welfare was related to the threat of deportation by police and the
corresponding risk of her son’s birth in a country she had chosen to leave, rather
than in the United States.9 This is a powerful motive to lie, particularly after
dishonesty had been demonstrated by extensive and effective impeachment of this
critical witness. Without evidence of a possible motive for Flores’ untruthfulness,
the impeachment lacked its sting. This ruling also left the State in a much better
9 While it does not drive our analysis here, it is noteworthy that Ayala Reyes’ pretrial motion
under ER 413 was aimed at a different potential motive for Flores to lie; her possible receipt of an
immigration benefit, specifically a U visa. Chicas Carballo, however, asserted Flores’ motive to lie
was based on the threat of a negative immigration consequence by way of deportation,
communicated to her by law enforcement during her interrogation.
Questions of one’s immigration status, including eligibility for a benefit or risk of a particular
consequence, are fact-specific and often highly nuanced. For that reason alone, the trial court erred
by not conducting an independent analysis of Chicas Carballo’s midtrial request under ER 413,
rather than relying upon its earlier conditional ruling on Ayala Reyes’ motion.
- 14 -
No. 82054-1-I/15
position to suggest general fear as justification for her motive to change her story
when talking to detectives, despite the fact that the court, State, and defense were
all were aware that her immigration status was woven throughout the facts of the
case. Chicas Carballo was deprived of the opportunity to introduce evidence to
rebut or challenge the State’s characterization of the reasons for her
untruthfulness.
The trial court appeared unwilling to engage in reweighing the relevance
and potential prejudice when Chicas Carballo asserted that Flores’ motive to lie,
fear from a police threat based on her immigration status, was critical to his
defense. As with the evidence of bias in Orn and alibi testimony in Grant, the
evidence Chicas Carballo sought was highly relevant and the prejudicial effect on
the State was comparatively low in terms of the overall fairness of the trial. Further,
concern as to prejudice is undercut by the fact that many of those involved in this
case were immigrants. Even if not expressly identified as such to the jury,
testimony by various witnesses about El Salvador and the fact that the defendants
and Flores participated in the trial with the assistance of interpreters could have
led any of the seated jurors to reasonably speculate that several of the trial
participants may be immigrants. Therefore any fear of generalized anti-immigrant
prejudice by the jury would cut against those parties equally, but most particularly
against the defendants. The State recognized how integral immigration was to the
case when it sought permission to discuss Flores’ experiences in El Salvador prior
to coming to the United States. However, the court warned that doing so would
open the door for the defense to cross-examine her about her status, so the State
- 15 -
No. 82054-1-I/16
withdrew its request. The mere fact of the State’s request, and proffered
reasoning, is telling as to the strong probative nature of this realm of testimony
which was restricted by the trial court.
This court recently considered the denial of a defense request to introduce
evidence of immigration status in State v. Bedada, 13 Wn. App. 2d 185, 463 P.3d
125 (2020). Bedada also involved a trial that occurred shortly after ER 413 had
become effective. In that case, we considered the ability to present a defense in
light of limits the court placed on cross-examination as to immigration status,
concluding that the trial court failed to weigh the probative value against the
prejudicial nature of such evidence. Id. In Bedada, the defendant sought to
introduce evidence of his own immigration status in order to establish a motive to
lie by the victim, his wife, based on her desire to have him removed from the
country. Id. at 188–90. When first discussed in motions in limine, the trial court
found that it would be unduly prejudicial to the State to have the defendant’s
immigration status known as the jury might focus on his potential deportation and
did not find that the information was relevant. Id. at 190–91. Bedada did not file
the requisite pretrial motion to introduce the evidence under ER 413. Id. at 195.
The issue was revisited during trial and defense explained the relevance
was due to a motive to fabricate. However, the trial court indicated it was a
balancing issue and that neither immigration status nor consequences were
relevant. Id. at 191–92. We held that the information was highly relevant and the
trial court’s failure to properly weigh the proffered evidence was an abuse of
discretion. Id. at 204. Our analysis reinforced that the State bears the burden to
- 16 -
No. 82054-1-I/17
establish that the evidence sought would be so prejudicial as to disrupt the fairness
of the fact-finding process. Id. at 201. Like the case at hand, the trial court in
Bedada provided no justification for its conclusion that the evidence was not
relevant. Id. at 200.
As with Grant and Orn, Bedada also guides our review here. Chicas
Carballo sought to introduce evidence of the key witness’ motive to fabricate. The
State even admitted in their closing that Flores did not voluntarily provide her story
to police. As in Bedada, no one disputed whether the evidence was reliable and
the trial court here similarly failed to engage in the necessary analysis. Id. at 201.
The State does not argue prejudice in this case and focuses instead on the
relevance of the information. The trial court seems to have proceeded with caution
in its application of the newly effective ER 413 and improperly placed the burden
on Chicas Carballo. This was a misapplication of the standard.
Additionally, the record before us demonstrates that there was no
discussion of a limiting instruction as to the evidence sought by the defense, nor
does it appear the final subsection of ER 413(a) was considered by the court in
any of its rulings on the matter. ER 413(a)(5) provides, “Nothing in this section
shall be construed to exclude evidence that would result in the violation of a
defendant’s constitutional rights.” The ability to provide the motive to fabricate after
the key witness admits to being untruthful is critical for the defense in a case in
which the State’s theory relied so heavily on that witness’ credibility. Flores was
intimately involved with the co-defendant and was captured on security footage
near the scene shortly before Cruces Vasquez was attacked. She was the only
- 17 -
No. 82054-1-I/18
live witness whose credibility could be directly assessed by the jury and who tied
Chicas Carballo to the events surrounding Cruces Vasquez’ death. After defense
attacked Flores’ credibility in closing, the State focused its rebuttal argument on
the various reasons she was credible, how she should be understood as truthful,
and generally attempting to rehabilitate her after her admissions of lying to police.
“[T]he right to present evidence of a witness’s bias is essential to the
fundamental constitutional right of a criminal defendant to present a complete
defense, which encompasses the right to confront and cross-examine adverse
witnesses.” Orn, 482 P.3d at 919 (citing Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 94 S.
Ct. 1105 (1974); Chambers, 410 U.S. at 294; Jones, 168 Wn.2d at 720; Darden,
145 Wn.2d at 620). Violation of the right to present a defense and to confront
witnesses is constitutional error. Jones, 168 Wn.2d at 724–25. “Constitutional
error is presumed prejudicial and the State bears the burden of showing the error
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Chambers, 197 Wn. App. 96,
128, 387 P.3d 1108 (2016).
The State has not met its burden of establishing that the error was harmless.
In Orn, the Supreme Court held that even if the key witness had not testified at all,
in light of the entire record, the trial outcome would have been the same due to the
“uncontradicted evidence” linking Orn to the crime. 482 P.3d at 923. The record
before us, however, is strikingly different. Ayala Reyes did not expressly name
Chicas Carballo as one of the perpetrators in his statements to police, there was
no DNA or other physical evidence to connect Chicas Carballo to the scene, and
he was not identified in the security footage that was introduced. At oral argument
- 18 -
No. 82054-1-I/19
before this court, the State reiterated that Flores was the key witness to implicate
Chicas Carballo in the murder. Absent Flores’ testimony, the only evidence
remaining as to Chicas Carballo’s possible connection to the murder or conspiracy
were phone records showing that he had communicated with Ayala Reyes and the
money transfer receipts between them. As such, we cannot conclude that this
error was harmless. In light of the violation of Chicas Carballo’s right to present a
defense, and State’s failure to demonstrate that this error was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
WE CONCUR:
- 19 -