Facts:  Petitioner Alberto Perez-Valdez was convicted of the second and third degree rapes of his adopted daughters in the Superior Court for Walla Walla County.  Perez-Valdez subsequently appealed his convictions, asserting that the trial court erred in preventing him from introducing evidence that the alleged victims committed arson in the foster home in which they were placed after being taken from Perez-Valdez’s home (allegedly in order to be removed from the foster home), in denying his motion for a mistrial after a witness improperly vouched for the alleged victims’ credibility, and in preventing him from referencing evidence regarding his moral character in closing arguments.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Perez-Valdez’s convictions.  Perez-Valdez appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s):   Did the trial court err in preventing Perez-Valdez from introducing evidence that the alleged victims committed arson in their foster home?

Did the trial court err in not declaring a mistrial after a witness improperly vouched for the alleged victims’ credibility?

Did the trial court err in preventing Perez-Valdez from referencing evidence regarding his moral character in closing arguments?

Conclusion:  Justice Owens’ opinion for the Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that although evidence of the alleged victims’ commission of arson in their foster home could have been admitted as evidence showing a motive for false accusation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it.  In particular, as Perez-Valdez failed to adequately lay the foundation for this evidence by establishing that the arson was motivated by a desire on the part of the alleged victims to leave their foster home, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.  The Court also found that the trial court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial given that the prejudice caused by the improper vouching for the alleged victims’ credibility was not so severe as to render the trial court’s subsequent curative instruction ineffective.  Finally, the Court held that the trial court properly limited Perez-Valdez’s closing argument insofar as the evidence regarding his moral character that Perez-Valdez attempted to reference had previously been ruled inadmissible.

Docket No. 84003-2 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 26996-5)

Petitioner: Alberto Perez-Valdez

(Counsel: David N. Gasch)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: James Lyle Nagle, Joseph Michael Golden, and Teresa Jeanne Chen)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, March 8, 2011 1:30pm

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

Decided: Thursday, October 13th, 2011

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 5-4

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen2 Court (2011-)

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander

Chambers

Owens
(Majority)

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens

Wiggins
(Dissent)