Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; July 12, 1971; Washington; State Appellate Court
James, J., Duane Wayne Rasmussen and Michael James Sarrett were jointly charged with first-degree assault and both waived their right to a jury trial, resulting in their conviction. They separately appealed, focusing on whether Sarrett fired a pistol at two police officers who stopped the car driven by Rasmussen. While both defendants acknowledged the presence of two pistols in the vehicle, they denied that either was discharged. They admitted that Rasmussen attempted to comply with an officer's request to exit the vehicle but instead fled at high speed, prompting the officers to fire at the car, puncturing a tire. The defendants abandoned the vehicle and escaped on foot before later being arrested.
Rasmussen contested the admission of witness testimony regarding Sarrett's statements after the incident, which the trial judge allowed but limited to Sarrett's actions. The witness recounted Sarrett's claim of pulling a gun when approached by officers, which was deemed inculpatory but not an admission of firing. Despite its hearsay nature, the trial judge's limited consideration of the testimony as pertaining only to Sarrett was not an error. The court concluded that confessions from one defendant in a joint trial can be admitted, provided the jury is instructed not to consider them against non-confessing defendants.
Rasmussen also challenged the sufficiency of evidence against him, arguing that there was no proof he aided or abetted Sarrett in the alleged assault. However, the court found substantial evidence indicating that the assault occurred under a prearranged signal, with both defendants acting in concert. Testimony from police officers and ballistics evidence supported the claim that shots were fired. A polygraph examiner believed neither defendant was lying when they denied firing the pistol, but the effects of drug use on the tests were undetermined. The trial judge's role in assessing witness credibility was upheld by the appellate court, which found sufficient evidence to sustain the trial judge’s findings.
Lastly, Rasmussen claimed error in the denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which involved an officer's statement post-trial suggesting he did not believe Rasmussen was involved in wrongdoing.
The trial judge maintained that an officer's opinion did not impact the determination that Rasmussen assisted in the assault. A motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is subject to the trial court's discretion, and such rulings are upheld unless there is clear evidence of abuse. Citing several precedents, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying the new trial motion. Rasmussen's argument for a new trial due to accumulated errors was dismissed, as the court found no individual errors that would warrant reconsideration. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed, with concurrence from Farris, A.C.J. and Swanson, J.
