Facts: Respondent Jason Powell was convicted of burglary in the Superior Court for Clark County after a trial in which evidence was admitted that Powell had ingested methamphetamine prior to the burglary. Powell subsequently appealed his conviction, claiming that the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighed its probative value in establishing his state of mind at the time of the crime and that it therefore should not have been admitted under Washington Rules of Evidence §404(b). The Washington Court of Appeals vacated Powell’s conviction, holding that the trial court had erred in admitting evidence of Powell’s drug use without such evidence being accompanied by expert testimony explaining the likely effects of methamphetamine use. The state of Washington appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Did the trial court err by admitting testimony regarding Powell’s drug use without also presenting expert testimony regarding its likely effects upon Powell despite the fact that Powell raised no objection to the lack of expert testimony at trial?

Conclusion: Justice Fairhurst’s opinion for the Court held that as Powell had objected only to the credibility of the witness testifying to his drug use on the day on the burglary rather than the probative value of their testimony or the lack of expert testimony that would place it in context, he had forfeited his right to subsequently raise the issue on appeal unless manifest constitutional error had been committed. As the Court concluded that there was no indication that the testimony in question had any practical and identifiable impact upon the outcome of the trial given the ample evidence supporting the guilty verdict, it ruled that no manifest error had been committed, reversed the decision of the Washington Court of Appeals, and affirmed Powell’s conviction.

Docket No. 80535-1 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 34556-1)

Petitioner: State of Washington

(Counsel: Arthur D. Curtis and Tonya R. Riddell)

Respondent: Jason Powell

(Counsel: John A. Hays)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, April 30th, 2009

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Petitioner)

Vote: 7-2

Opinion: 166 Wn.2d 73 (2009)

Court: Alexander4 Court (2008-2009)

Alexander

Johnson

Madsen

Sanders

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens

Opinion

Concurrence

Dissent