Facts:  Petitioner William Brousseau was convicted of the rape of a child and child molestation in the Superior Court for Asotin County after a trial in which the alleged victim testified after being deemed competent following a competency hearing and in which out of court statements made by the alleged victim were admitted into evidence pursuant to Washington Revised Code §9A.44.120’s child hearsay exception.  Brousseau subsequently appealed his conviction, asserting that he was denied due process of law when the trial court prevented him from calling the alleged victim to testify at the competency hearing, that §9A.44.120 requires that a child testify at their pretrial child hearsay hearing in order for their out of court statements to be admissible at trial, and that his attorney’s failure to object to testimony regarding the alleged victim’s credibility constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.  The Washington Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s):  Did the trial court deny Brousseau due process of law in deeming the alleged victim competent to testify at trial without calling her to testify at the competency hearing?

Does §9A.44.120’s child hearsay exception require that a child testify at their pretrial child hearsay hearing in order for their out of court statements to be admissible at trial?

Was Brousseau denied effective assistance of counsel by his attorney’s failure to object to testimony regarding the alleged victim’s credibility?

Conclusion:  Chief Justice Madsen’s opinion for the Court affirmed Brousseau’s conviction, concluding that a child is presumed competent to testify and that the trial court was therefore not required to call the alleged victim to testify at the competency hearing absent Brousseau presenting evidence of incompetence.  The Court also held that §9A.44.120’s child hearsay exception does not require that a child testify at their pretrial child hearsay hearing in order for their out of court statements to be admissible and requires only that a child testify at trial.  Finally, the Court also found that Brousseau had not been denied effective assistance of counsel by his attorney’s failure to object to testimony regarding the alleged victim’s credibility.

Docket No. 83415-6 (from Asotin Case No. 06-1-00229-8)

Appellant: William Brousseau

(Counsel: Jeffrey Erwin Ellis)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: Benjamin Curler Nichols, Joseph James Anthony Jackson, and Teresa Jeanne Chen)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:00am

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

Decided: Thursday, August 18th, 2011

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 5-4

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-2011)

Madsen
(Majority)

Johnson

Alexander

Sanders

Chambers

Owens
(Dissent)

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens

Opinion

Dissent