Washington Supreme Court

State v. Hardy

November 20, 1997946 P.2d 1175

Summary

The court held that admitting Hardy's prior drug conviction for impeachment violated ER 609(a)(1) because the State and trial court did not establish that the conviction was probative of truthfulness or adequately balance probative value against prejudice. Because Hardy's credibility was central and the evidence was not overwhelming, the error was prejudicial and required reversal and a new trial. The court separately held that the victim's and companion's statements to police were properly admitted as excited utterances.

Holding

  • Admissibility of the prior felony drug conviction for impeachment. A prior ordinary drug conviction is generally not probative of a witness's veracity under ER 609(a)(1), and it may be admitted only after the proponent affirmatively demonstrates both that it bears on truthfulness and that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. The trial court erred by admitting Hardy's unnamed drug conviction without articulating how it was probative of veracity, and the error was prejudicial.
  • Admission of statements as excited utterances. The statements made to the responding officer were admissible as excited utterances because a startling event had occurred, the statements related to that event, and the declarants were still visibly under the stress of the event when they spoke.

Docket 64619-8

Cited authorities

  • 42 Vill. L. Rev. 1
  • 42 Vill. L. Rev. 1
  • 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 2295

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF