State of Washington v. Julia Elieen Napier

Full text

FILED JULY 21, 2022 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 37892-6-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) JULIA ELIEEN NAPIER, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. )

SIDDOWAY, C.J. — Julia Napier was convicted of intentionally assaulting Spokane County Sheriff’s Deputy Clay Hilton, who was performing his official duties at the time. She assigns error to the trial court’s ruling admitting evidence for a rebuttal purpose that she contends was not true rebuttal evidence, and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction.

The State’s witnesses’ evidence was sufficient and to the extent its evidence offered in rebuttal was cumulative, it was harmless. We affirm.

— 2 —

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Julia Napier and her sister, Patricia Murray, had traveled to a Spokane Valley restaurant and bar for food, drinks, karaoke, and pool one August evening when Darnai Vaile, a patron of the bar unknown to Ms. Murray, allegedly approached her as she played pool and kissed her without warning. When the karaoke disc jockey saw Ms. Murray swing a pool cue at Mr. Vaile in response, he asked her and Ms. Napier to leave. As Ms. Murray was leaving, she told patrons at the pool tables that she was going to call 911 to report an assault, and they scoffed at her.

Ms. Murray’s 911 call was received at around 11:30 p.m. She told the dispatcher she had been assaulted and would await the responding officers’ arrival outside.

The first deputies to respond were Michael Vicini and Clay Hilton. Approximately 10 people were standing in the bar side of the parking lot on their arrival. Although Deputy Vicini began by locating Ms. Murray and starting to question her, his and Deputy Hilton’s attention was quickly deflected to Mr. Vaile, a very large man (6’10” and over 350 pounds) who appeared at the edge of the parking lot and looked to be approaching Deputy Vicini and Ms. Murray aggressively. Mr. Vaile’s fists were clenched, he pushed past a friend who tried to stop him, and he angrily told Deputy Vicini he “want[ed] to tell [his] side.” Report of Proceedings (RP) at 308. Mr. Vaile ignored the officers’ orders that he calm down and Deputy Vicini’s command that he stop

— 3 —

and sit on the curb. When Deputy Hilton told Mr. Vaile he was going to pat search him for weapons, Mr. Vaile backed away, yelled that he had a knife, and began reaching in his pockets for it. Rather than obey the deputies’ commands that he remove his hands from his pockets, he overcame their efforts to control his hands, retrieved the knife, and tossed it on the ground. He later testified at trial that the knife had a pressurized blade and he was concerned that if one of the deputies grabbed it, it could open.

Deputy Griffin Criswell arrived. He could see that Deputies Hilton and Vicini each had one of the arms of Mr. Vaile, “a very large male,” and they were in an obvious struggle to get him detained. RP at 399. By striking Mr. Vaile with his baton while the other deputies performed leg sweeps, he, Deputy Vicini, and Deputy Hilton, got Mr. Vaile to the ground. By this point, some of the onlookers had gathered closer to the officers and, unhappy with what was happening to Mr. Vaile, were yelling and screaming. According to Deputy Hilton, Ms. Napier and Ms. Murray had become the most obstructive onlookers; they had approached “within arm’s reach” and were ordered to get back several times but refused to obey. RP at 254. As Deputies Criswell and Vicini continued to try to handcuff Mr. Vaile, Deputy Hilton stood up and told Ms. Napier that she was under arrest for obstruction. When he took control of her hands to handcuff her, he claims that she swung around and hit him in the face.

— 4 —

At trial, only Deputy Hilton and Deputy Criswell testified to witnessing Ms. Napier’s third degree assault of Deputy Hilton. Following presentation of the defense case, the State proposed to offer rebuttal testimony from Deputy Hilton, to which Ms. Napier objected on the basis that the deputy would be “rehashing” his prior testimony rather than responding to any new matter presented by the defense. RP at 606. After hearing an offer of proof, the trial court ruled it would allow the testimony.

The jury found Ms. Napier guilty.1 She moved for arrest of judgment and a new trial, arguing that most of the trial witnesses had seen no evidence of her alleged assault of Deputy Hilton. The motion was denied. She appeals.

ANALYSIS

Ms. Napier assigns two errors on appeal: that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the State to present rebuttal testimony and that insufficient evidence supports her conviction.

“Rebuttal evidence is admitted to enable the plaintiff to answer new matter presented by the defense.” State v. White, 74 Wn.2d 386, 394, 444 P.2d 661 (1968). “[It] is not simply a reiteration of evidence,” and the plaintiff “is not allowed to withhold

— 5 —

substantial evidence supporting any of the issues which it has the burden of proving in its case in chief merely in order to present this evidence cumulatively at the end of defendant’s case.” Id. at 394-95.

“Ascertaining whether the rebuttal evidence is in reply to new matters established by the defense, however, is a difficult matter at times,” and “[f]requently true rebuttal evidence will, in some degree, overlap or coalesce with the evidence in chief. Therefore, the question of admissibility of evidence on rebuttal rests largely on the trial court’s discretion, and error in denying or allowing it can be predicated only upon a manifest abuse of that discretion.” Id. at 395. As with other evidentiary error, the admission of what is not true rebuttal evidence is harmless if we conclude it did not affect the outcome of trial. State v. Burns, 53 Wn. App. 849, 851, 770 P.2d 1054 (1989) (finding error in admitting rebuttal testimony, but holding error was harmless), aff’d, 114 Wn.2d 314, 788 P.2d 531 (1990); City of Seattle v. Pearson, 192 Wn. App. 802, 819, 369 P.3d 194 (2016) (reversal for evidentiary error is required only when the ruling materially affects the outcome of trial).

In the State’s case-in-chief, Deputy Hilton provided the following testimony about the basis for Ms. Napier’s third degree assault charge:

— 6 —

RP at 255-56.

— 7 —

Ms. Napier testified in her own behalf. She testified that the only action she took as she watched the officers get Mr. Vaile to the ground and handcuff him was to “lean[ ] over a little bit, moved my arms like this, and said, please, officers, he’s a nice man. That was it.” RP at 551. She testified that after the officers had Mr. Vaile on the ground, Deputy Hilton told her to step back so she did, three to four feet. She testified that the following happened next:

RP at 552-53. Defense counsel then questioned Ms. Napier about Deputy Hilton’s testimony that she swung around to hit him after he grasped her wrists:

— 8 —

RP at 556.

When the prosecutor told the trial court he wished to call Deputy Hilton for rebuttal testimony, it was not because the jury had heard new evidence from Ms. Napier that new rebuttal evidence would show to be wrong or improbable. The State made the following offer of proof:

— 9 —

RP at 606. This was evidence that was presented in the State’s case-in-chief or could have been; it had not become relevant for the first time based on Ms. Napier’s testimony. Nevertheless, the rebuttal testimony offered by the State was only a brief recount of Detective Hilton’s prior testimony with an explanation of why he recalled it clearly. It takes up less than two pages of the report of proceedings. Even if the trial court can be said to have abused its discretion in allowing the rebuttal testimony, we are satisfied that it did not materially affect the outcome of the trial.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Ms. Napier also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that only two of the trial witnesses—Deputy Hilton and Deputy Criswell—testified to having seen her commit the third degree assault.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, the test is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). In a criminal case, an insufficiency claim “admits the truth of the State’s evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.” Id.

Credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and are not subject to review. State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 874, 83 P.3d 970 (2004), aff’d, 166 Wn.2d 380, 208 P.3d 1107 (2009). Accordingly, this court defers to the trier of fact on issues of

— 10 —

conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. Id. at 874-75. We will assess only whether “there was substantial evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that the burden of proof had been met and that the defendant was the one who perpetrated the crime.” State v. Johnson, 12 Wn. App. 40, 45, 527 P.2d 1324 (1974). Substantial evidence means evidence in the record of a sufficient quantity to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the finding. State v. Hill, 123 Wn.2d 641, 644, 870 P.2d 313 (1994); see State v. Williams, 96 Wn.2d 215, 222, 634 P.2d 868 (1981).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, Deputy Hilton’s testimony that he was assaulted by Ms. Napier was sufficient, and was corroborated by the testimony of Deputy Criswell. Although two other deputies, Deputy Vicini and laterarriving Deputy James Wang, did not see Ms. Napier assault Deputy Hilton, their testimony did not hurt the State’s case. Deputy Vicini testified that he witnessed Ms. Napier ignore Deputy Hilton’s commands that she get back from where the two deputies were trying to handcuff Mr. Vaile, that he witnessed Deputy Hilton stand up and tell Ms. Napier that she was under arrest for obstruction, and that he saw her “sp[i]n on him and pull[ ] away” from Deputy Hilton when he attempted to put her hands behind her back. RP at 314. The only thing Deputy Vicini said he did not see “from [his] angle” was Ms.

— 11 —

Napier make contact with the deputy. Id.; RP at 334. Deputy Wang arrived after Ms. Napier had been arrested.

As the State points out, the trier of fact could have questioned the credibility of the witnesses who claimed Ms. Napier had not committed assault. Most of those witnesses had relationships with Mr. Vaile, Ms. Murray or Ms. Napier, or had been drinking. We have no basis for rejecting the jury’s credibility determinations.

Affirmed.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.

Siddoway, C.J. WE CONCUR: