Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that a trial court is not required to give a limiting instruction sua sponte for evidence admitted under Washington Evidence Rule 404(b). Because neither party requested such an instruction, the court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed Russell’s conviction for first degree rape of a child.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals properly exercised its discretion under RAP 2.5(a) to review Russell's unpreserved claim that the trial court erred by failing to give a limiting instruction.
- Whether ER 105 requires a trial court to sua sponte give a limiting instruction when ER 404(b) evidence is admitted and neither party requests one.
Holdings
- The Court of Appeals properly accepted review because RAP 2.5(a) states that an appellate court may refuse to review an issue not raised below; the rule does not prohibit discretionary review of such an issue.
- A trial court is not required to sua sponte give a limiting instruction for ER 404(b) evidence when neither party requests one.
Key quotations
“Under the plain language of ER 105, the trial court has a duty to issue a limiting instruction only upon request for such an instruction.” (123)
“Because neither Russell nor the State requested a limiting instruction for the ER 404(b) evidence, we hold that the trial court was not required to sua sponte give a limiting instruction.” (124)
Factual background
The State charged Russell with first degree rape of a child based on alleged sexual abuse of CR in Washington. To corroborate the Washington allegations and show Russell's lustful disposition toward CR, the State sought to introduce evidence of escalating sexual misconduct occurring in Hawaii, Florida, and Indiana. The trial court admitted the Hawaii and Florida evidence under ER 404(b), but neither party requested a limiting instruction, and the court did not give one.
Procedural history
Russell was convicted of first degree rape of a child involving domestic violence. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly admitted evidence of prior and subsequent sexual misconduct to show lustful disposition but reversed because the court failed to sua sponte provide a limiting instruction. The Washington Supreme Court granted the State's petition for review, reversed the Court of Appeals, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.