Washington Supreme Court

The State of Washington v. Patrick Eldon Hardy

November 20, 1997133 Wash. 2d 701

Summary

The court held that Hardy’s prior drug conviction was improperly admitted for impeachment because the State and trial court did not show that it bore on his truthfulness, and the error was prejudicial given the importance of Hardy’s credibility. The court upheld admission of the victim’s and her companion’s statements as excited utterances because they were made shortly after the alleged robbery while the declarants remained visibly distressed. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for retrial; Justice Talmadge, dissenting, would have found any impeachment error harmless and affirmed the conviction.

Holding

  • Admission 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). Before admitting such evidence, the party seeking admission must demonstrate on the record that the conviction 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 his veracity, and the error was reversible because Hardy’s credibility was central to the case and the evidence was not overwhelming.
  • Admission of statements as excited utterances. The victim’s and her companion’s statements to the responding officer were admissible as excited utterances because a startling event occurred, the statements related to that event, and the declarants remained visibly shaken and excited when they made the statements only minutes afterward.

Docket No. 64619-8

Cited authorities

  • 42 Vill. L. Rev. 1
  • 42 Vill. L. Rev. 1
  • 19 Law & Hum. Behav. 67
  • 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 2295

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF