The Washington Supreme Court recently ruled that RCW 10.58.090, which permitted the admission of prior sex offenses as evidence in criminal cases, is unconstitutional. The court found that this statute irreconcilably conflicted with Evidence Rule (ER) 404(b), which governs the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials. This significant ruling was established in the case of State v. Gresham.
Case Background In State v. Gresham, Mr. Gresham was charged with four counts of first-degree child molestation, based on allegations involving a single victim dating back to 2003. Prior to trial, the court ruled that under RCW 10.58.090, evidence of Gresham’s prior conviction for second-degree assault with sexual motivation was admissible. Despite this ruling, Gresham was ultimately convicted of three counts of first-degree child molestation and one count of attempted first-degree child molestation, receiving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
Legal Challenge Mr. Gresham challenged the constitutionality of RCW 10.58.090, arguing that it violated the separation of powers by conflicting with ER 404(b). ER 404(b) specifically restricts the admission of evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts solely to prove a defendant’s character and propensity to commit the crime charged. Instead, ER 404(b) allows such evidence only for specific purposes, such as proving motive, intent, or a common scheme or plan.
Court’s Ruling The Washington Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Gresham, declaring RCW 10.58.090 unconstitutional. The court emphasized that ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to the admission of evidence solely for the purpose of proving a defendant’s character or likelihood of committing a crime. RCW 10.58.090, by contrast, allowed such evidence to be admitted “notwithstanding Evidence Rule 404(b).” The court determined this created an irreconcilable conflict between the statute and the evidence rule.
Impact and Conclusion As a result of this ruling, the court reversed Gresham’s convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the charges were reduced, and Gresham entered an Alford plea to two counts of second-degree child molestation. The court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s authority to regulate court procedures and highlights the constitutional protections against the use of prejudicial evidence in criminal trials.
For further reading, you can access the full court opinion here.
Additional Resources
Pre-Approved Community Service Sites for Pierce County Superior Court
This resource provides a comprehensive list of pre-approved community service sites for individuals required to complete court-ordered service in Pierce County Superior Court. It offers valuable guidance on fulfilling community service obligations to meet legal requirements.
State v. Gresham: Child Molestation Case Determines RCW 10.58.090 to Be Unconstitutional
This article analyzes the State v. Gresham case, where the Washington Supreme Court found RCW 10.58.090 unconstitutional. It discusses the ruling’s impact on the admissibility of prior sexual misconduct evidence in child molestation cases.
Administrative Booking: Pierce County Superior Court, Washington
This article outlines the administrative booking process in Pierce County Superior Court, explaining when it is required, what defendants can expect, and how it fits into the larger legal process in Washington State.
Consumer Awareness Class: Theft Case in Pierce County
This article covers the Consumer Awareness Class required for those involved in theft cases in Pierce County. It explains the purpose of the class, how it helps defendants, and its role in resolving minor theft cases.
FAQs: Medical Marijuana in Washington State
This FAQ guide provides detailed answers to common questions about medical marijuana in Washington State, including legal requirements, eligibility, possession limits, and how the state’s medical marijuana laws differ from recreational use laws.
FAQs: Federal Courthouse in Tacoma, Washington
This FAQ article offers essential information about the Federal Courthouse in Tacoma, Washington. It addresses common questions about court procedures, services, and what individuals can expect when attending federal court in Tacoma.
About Blanford Law At Blanford Law, we are dedicated to providing relentless, fair, and honest legal representation. With over 20 years of experience, Ken Blanford founded our firm on the belief that every client deserves respect and the best possible defense, free from assumptions or preconceived notions. If you or someone you know needs assistance with bail bond exonerations or justifications, please contact us anytime at 253-720-9304 or email us at info@blanfordlaw.com.
