State v. Martin

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court considered whether a prosecutor violated article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution by questioning the defendant about tailoring his testimony to conform to police reports, witness statements, and prior testimony. The court held that the state constitution provides broader protection than the Sixth Amendment in this context, but concluded that the questioning was permissible because it occurred during cross-examination and responded to the defendant’s testimony. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals on different grounds.

Holdings

1. Article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution is more protective than the Sixth Amendment in the context of prosecutorial suggestions that a defendant tailored testimony, and it must be analyzed independently under the Gunwall factors.
2. The prosecutor did not violate article I, section 22 by asking Martin during cross-examination whether he tailored his testimony to conform to police reports, witness statements, and testimony from other witnesses, because Martin's direct testimony opened the door to those credibility questions.
3. The court declined to exercise its inherent supervisory power to prohibit this type of cross-examination because doing so would inhibit the truth-seeking function and would not constitute sound judicial practice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution provides protections independent of the Sixth Amendment in the context of prosecutorial questions suggesting that a defendant tailored his testimony.
2. Whether the prosecutor's cross-examination questions suggesting that Martin tailored his testimony to conform to police reports, witness statements, and prior testimony violated article I, section 22.
3. Whether the Washington Supreme Court should exercise its inherent supervisory power to prohibit prosecutorial questions suggesting that a defendant tailored testimony.

Disposition

affirmed