Automated Summary
Key Facts
Cougar Ray Henderson was convicted of second-degree rape of E.J., a 16-year-old victim in a 2013 incident, following a May 2018 trial. The conviction was affirmed on appeal after the trial court denied Henderson's CrR 7.8 motion challenging the exclusion of a Facebook message (proposed exhibit 3) during trial, with the appellate court finding the exclusion harmless due to undisputed testimony about the messages obtained through extensive cross-examination.
Issues
The court determined whether the trial court erred in denying Henderson's CrR 7.8(b) motion to vacate his second degree rape conviction based on the exclusion of proposed defense exhibit 3 (a Facebook message exchange between Henderson and the victim). The court held that any error in excluding the evidence was harmless because the testimony about the text messages was already undisputed and presented to the jury.
Holdings
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Henderson's CrR 7.8(b) motion, concluding that the exclusion of proposed defense exhibit 3 was harmless error because the testimony regarding the text messages was already presented to the jury and undisputed, thus Henderson could not demonstrate prejudice.
Legal Principles
The court held that the exclusion of the Facebook messages was harmless error because testimony about the messages was already admitted and undisputed, so no prejudice was demonstrated.
Precedent Name
- State v. Dennis
- State v. Keller
- State v. Dorenbos
- State v. Robinson
- Burlingame v. Consol. Mines
- In re Marriage of Tang
Cited Statute
- RCW 10.73.090
- Rule 7.5
- RCW 2.06.040
- Rule 7.8(b)
Judge Name
- Siddoway
- Fearing
- Lawrence-Berrey
Passage Text
- E.J. repeatedly acknowledged that the text messaging occurred, and defense counsel had Mr. Henderson recount the communications as well. In his closing argument, defense counsel aptly described the evidence of the text exchange as 'the Facebook post[ ] that has been read again and again.'
- The trial court reasonably denied Mr. Henderson's CrR 7.8(b) motion on the basis that given the undisputed testimony presented about the text message, Mr. Henderson could not demonstrate prejudice.
- In sustaining a discrete objection, a trial court is not required to explain to jurors that its ruling does not affect related, unobjected-to evidence.