Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
October 18, 2016
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 47489-1-II
Respondent, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
v.
JOSEPH RAYMOND WHEARTY,
Appellant.
BJORGEN, C.J. — A jury returned verdicts finding Joseph Raymond Whearty guilty of
unlawful imprisonment and fourth degree assault. The jury also returned special verdicts finding
that Whearty committed both offenses against a member of the same family or household and
that he committed unlawful imprisonment within the sight or sound of the victim’s minor
children. Whearty appeals his convictions, asserting (1) the trial court erred by failing to give a
unanimity instruction as to the unlawful imprisonment charge, (2) the trial court’s exclusion of
video evidence violated his constitutional right to present a defense, (3) defense counsel was
No. 47489-1-II
ineffective for failing to adequately impeach an alleged victim, and (4) the trial court erred by
failing to admit hearsay evidence under ER 106. We affirm.
FACTS
Whearty and Chelcie Dalmeny were in a dating relationship and lived together with
Dalmeny’s two daughters, OD and SJ.1 2 Whearty and Dalmeny were involved in mixed marital
arts (MMA) competitions, and both participated in MMA matches during the weekend of
January 24, 2015. Whearty acted as Dalmeny’s corner man3 during her match. Dalmeny won
the match and received several injuries as a result. Specifically, Dalmeny fractured her left hand
and had bruising on both legs and around her eyes.
Whearty and Dalmeny disagree about the January 27 incidents leading to Whearty’s
charges in the present case. According to Dalmeny, she and Whearty were arguing on the
morning of January 27. Whearty left the house that morning with Dalmeny’s cell phone.
Dalmeny used another cell phone to send Whearty a Facebook message that stated she wanted to
end their relationship. After continuing to argue through Facebook messages, Whearty
eventually stated that he would pack up his belongings. Dalmeny returned to the house that
afternoon and saw that Whearty was still there. Dalmeny told Whearty that she was serious
about breaking up and then left with her daughters. Whearty appeared to be sober when
Dalmeny left the house.
1
At the time of trial, OD was nine years old and SJ was two years old.
2
We change the minors’ names to initials to provide confidentiality.
3
According to trial testimony a “corner man” is the “person that attends to [the fighter] in
between rounds.” Report of Proceedings (RP) at 49.
2
No. 47489-1-II
When Dalmeny and her daughters returned to the house later that evening, Whearty
appeared to be intoxicated. Dalmeny told her daughters to play in their room; Dalmeny went to
her room and lay on her bed. Whearty ran in the room, screamed at Dalmeny, put his fist on her
throat, and punched her in the head. SJ jumped on Whearty, and Whearty pushed her away. At
this point, Dalmeny was able to get out from under Whearty. Whearty then kicked Dalmeny,
rolled the mattress on top of her, and jumped on her. Dalmeny got out from the mattress and
picked up SJ. Whearty grabbed SJ and threw her on the bed. He then grabbed Dalmeny and
threw her at a window. He also grabbed and twisted Dalmeny’s wrist. Dalmeny managed to get
ahold of SJ and leave the room. She yelled for OD, grabbed a diaper bag, and attempted to leave
the house. Whearty grabbed the diaper bag and emptied its contents on the floor. Dalmeny tried
to calm Whearty, and his mood fluctuated between “crazy, screaming” to cooperative. Report of
Proceedings (RP) at 66.
When Dalmeny went to her car,4 Whearty attempted to get the car keys from her purse.
Whearty restrained Dalmeny against the garage with his arm, but relented after Dalmeny
screamed for their landlord. Dalmeny and her daughters got in her car, but Whearty blocked
their exit by lying down and positioning his neck under one of the back tires, stating that
Dalmeny would have to kill him if she wanted to leave. Whearty moved after Dalmeny revved
the engine. As Dalmeny drove down the driveway, Whearty jumped on the car and repeatedly
hit the windshield. The windshield cracked in several spots, and glass hit Dalmeny and the
children. Whearty eventually got off of the vehicle when another vehicle approached.
4
Whearty’s friend, Sharon Johnson, lent this car to Dalmeny.
3
No. 47489-1-II
Whearty admitted that he and Dalmeny were arguing on the morning of January 27 and
that he took Dalmeny’s cell phone when he left the house. However, in contrast to Dalmeny’s
account, Whearty stated that Dalmeny did not mention breaking up until she came home that
afternoon. Whearty felt confused when Dalmeny asked him why he was still at the house, and
after she left with her children, Whearty became depressed and drank two and a half beers.
Whearty again felt confused when Dalmeny returned that evening and asked why he was still
there. Whearty stated that he did not leave the house, because he and Dalmeny always seemed to
work things out, and that he went in to the bedroom so that he could smoke marijuana with
Dalmeny. According to Whearty, Dalmeny hit him in the face when he grabbed Dalmeny’s pipe.
Dalmeny continued to swing at Whearty, so he grabbed her hands, pushed her, and fell on top of
her. Whearty denied pushing his fist against Dalmeny’s throat, hitting her on the head, twisting
her wrist, throwing her at a window, or wrapping her in a mattress. Whearty struggled with
Dalmeny over the car keys because he was concerned about her driving with her daughters while
high on “pills and weed.” RP at 282. He put his arm against her chest and pushed her to the
ground because she was swinging at him with her left hand. Whearty admitted to jumping on the
car, stating that he did so to prevent Dalmeny from driving with the children while intoxicated.
Dalmeny drove to a store in Onalaska and called her sister, Sarah Dalmeny. Sarah5 told
Dalmeny that she would meet her at their father’s house. After Sarah and Dalmeny arrived at
their father’s house, they called the police. Lewis County Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Mohr
responded to their call, took a recorded statement from Dalmeny, and photographed her injuries
5
Because Sarah and Chelcie Dalmeny share a last name, we refer to Sarah by her first name for
clarity.
4
No. 47489-1-II
and the damage to her car, which photographs were later admitted at trial. Later that evening,
Mohr went to Dalmeny’s house and arrested Whearty. On February 19, 2015, the State charged
Whearty by amended information with unlawful imprisonment, second degree assault by
strangulation or suffocation for his alleged conduct against Dalmeny, and second degree assault
with intent to commit a felony for his alleged conduct against SJ.
Before trial, the trial court held a CrR 3.5 hearing to determine the admissibility of
Whearty’s statements to police. Mohr testified at the CrR 3.5 hearing that Whearty repeatedly
said “he didn’t do anything” while being transported to the jail and again at the jail. RP at 30.
Mohr also testified that while he was being transported to the jail, Whearty stated, “She hit me,
and I’m going to jail.” RP at 35. The trial court ruled that Whearty’s statements were admissible.
At trial, Whearty and Dalmeny testified consistently with the facts as they recounted
them above. Additionally, both testified extensively about Dalmeny’s MMA training and about
the details of her MMA match on the weekend of January 24. After Dalmeny testified, defense
counsel requested to show the jury a video from her MMA match. Defense counsel argued that
the video was admissible as character evidence under ER 404(a)(2) and ER 405(b) and that the
evidence was necessary to support Whearty’s self-defense claim because the video showed
Dalmeny’s ability to fight. The State argued that the video was not relevant because no evidence
had yet been presented that Whearty acted in self-defense. The State also argued that the video
was highly prejudicial and was cumulative to the testimony regarding her participation in the
MMA match. The trial court agreed with the State and excluded the video evidence, stating:
The balancing here comes out in favor of excluding this [video]. The fact that she
was involved in a competition with another woman in a ring where there were rules
involved has nothing to do with an alleged assault by somebody who weighs 45
pounds more than her in a situation where there are no rules, when she has an injury
5
No. 47489-1-II
that prevents her from fighting back. So, no, I’m not going to allow this. I agree
with the State on that one.
RP at 167-68.
During Mohr’s testimony on cross-examination, the following exchange took place:
[Defense counsel]: In the car did you ask his side of the story?
[Mohr]: No.
[Defense counsel]: Did he try to give you his side of the story?
[Mohr]: No. He was just screaming and crying.
[Defense counsel]: He didn’t try to give his side of the story?
[Mohr]: No.
[Defense counsel]: He didn’t tell you she had hit him?
[State]: Objection; calls [for] hearsay.
[Trial court]: Sustained.
[Defense counsel]: I think it goes to impeachment, Your Honor, which
is . . .
[Trial court]: Not like that, it doesn’t. The objection is sustained.
[Defense counsel]: While he was in the car did Mr. Whearty express some sort
of disbelief as to why he was in the car and arrested?
[State]: Objection; hearsay.
[Trial court]: Sustained.
[Defense counsel]: It’s a yes or no question, Your Honor. I’m not asking
him to answer what he said.
[Trial court]: The objection is sustained. The way that question
was phrased it does ask for a specific response, so objection’s sustained.
[Defense counsel]: So you get to the jail and you try to ask him his side of the
story then, right?
[Mohr]: Yes.
[Defense counsel]: And just more crying?
[Mohr]: Yes.
RP at 231-32.
The trial court instructed the jury on fourth degree assault as inferior degree offenses to
Whearty’s second degree assault charges. The jury returned verdicts finding Whearty not guilty
of second degree assault by strangulation or suffocation but guilty of fourth degree assault as an
inferior degree offense to that charge. The jury also returned verdicts finding Whearty guilty of
unlawful imprisonment, not guilty of second degree assault with intent to commit a felony, and
6
No. 47489-1-II
not guilty of fourth degree assault as an inferior degree offense to the second degree assault with
the intent to commit the felony charge. Additionally, the jury returned special verdicts finding
that Whearty committed unlawful imprisonment and fourth degree assault against a member of
the same family or household and that he committed unlawful imprisonment within the sight or
sound of the victim’s minor children. Whearty appeals from his convictions of unlawful
imprisonment and fourth degree assault. We affirm.
ANALYSIS
I. UNANIMITY INSTRUCTION
Whearty first contends that the trial court erred by failing to give a unanimity instruction
with regard to his unlawful imprisonment charge because the State alleged several acts that could
have supported a conviction on the charge. Because all of the acts alleged by the State were part
of the same continuous course of conduct, a unanimity instruction was not required and, thus,
Whearty fails to show manifest error allowing him to raise this issue for the first time on appeal.
Whearty did not request a unanimity instruction at trial, but he argues that he may
challenge the trial court’s failure to sua sponte provide a unanimity instruction under RAP
2.5(a)(3). We disagree.
RAP 2.5(a)(3) permits this court to address an issue raised for the first time on appeal if
the issue concerns a “manifest error affecting a constitutional right.” A trial court’s failure to
provide the jury with a required unanimity instruction is of constitutional magnitude. State v.
Bobenhouse, 166 Wn.2d 881, 893, 214 P.3d 907 (2009). However, the failure to provide a
required unanimity instruction is manifest only where it had “practical and identifiable
consequences” at trial. State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671, 676, 260 P.3d 884 (2011) (internal
7
No. 47489-1-II
quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99, 217 P.3d 756 (2009)).
“Each of these requirements demands that the alleged action, in this case the omission of a
unanimity instruction, in fact be in error.” State v. Locke, 175 Wn. App. 779, 802, 307 P.3d 771
(2013), review denied, 179 Wn.2d 1021 (2014).
When the State alleges multiple acts that could support a conviction on a single charge,
the jury may convict on that charge only if it unanimously agrees on the particular conduct
underlying the conviction. Locke, 175 Wn. App. at 802. However, where the acts alleged by the
State are part of a continuing course of conduct, no unanimity instruction is required. Locke, 175
Wn. App. at 803. When determining whether the defendant’s multiple acts were part of a
continuing course of conduct, “we evaluate the facts in a commonsense manner, considering (1)
the time separating the criminal acts and (2) whether the criminal acts involved the same parties,
location, and ultimate purpose.” State v. Brown, 159 Wn. App. 1, 14, 248 P.3d 518 (2010).
Here, the State’s allegations that Whearty unlawfully restrained Dalmeny by (1) pinning
her to the bed, (2) wrapping her in a mattress, (3) taking the diaper bag from her, (4) pinning her
against the ground, (5) placing his neck behind the tire of her car, and (6) jumping on top of her
car were all part of a continuing course of conduct. The alleged acts all took place within a short
time period, and all took place within Dalmeny’s home or just outside the home, involved the
same parties, and were committed to achieve the same objective—to prevent Dalmeny from
leaving her property. Therefore, evaluating the facts in a common sense manner, we hold that
the multiple acts alleged by the State constituted a continuing course of conduct. Whearty thus
fails to demonstrate that the trial court erred by failing to provide a unanimity instruction.
8
No. 47489-1-II
Accordingly, he fails to show a manifest constitutional error allowing him to raise this claim for
the first time on appeal under RAP 2.5(a)(3).
II. RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE
Next, Whearty contends that the trial court’s evidentiary ruling prohibiting defense
counsel from showing the jury a video of Dalmeny’s MMA match violated his right to present a
defense. Again, we disagree.
A defendant in a criminal trial has a constitutional right to present a defense. State v.
Rehak, 67 Wn. App. 157, 162, 834 P.2d 651 (1992). However, a criminal defendant’s right to
present a defense is not absolute; a defendant seeking to present evidence must show that the
evidence is at least minimally relevant to a fact at issue in the case. State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d
713, 720, 230 P.3d 576 (2010). Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the
existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or
less probable than it would be without the evidence.” ER 401.
If the defendant establishes the minimal relevance of the evidence sought to be presented,
the burden shifts to the State “to show the evidence is so prejudicial as to disrupt the fairness of
the fact-finding process at trial.” State v. Darden, 145 Wn.2d 612, 622, 41 P.3d 1189 (2002). A
trial court must then balance “the State’s interest to exclude prejudicial evidence . . . against the
defendant’s need for the information sought,” and may exclude such evidence only where “the
State’s interest outweighs the defendant’s need.” Darden, 145 Wn.2d at 622. We review de
novo a claim that a trial court’s evidentiary ruling violated a defendant’s right to present a
defense. Jones, 168 Wn.2d at 719.
9
No. 47489-1-II
Whearty asserts that video evidence of Dalmeny’s MMA match was relevant to his self-
defense claim because the video showed Dalmeny’s ability to fight and inflict injury. Assuming
for the sake of argument that Whearty is correct regarding the video’s relevance, the trial court
nonetheless properly conducted the appropriate balancing test to exclude the video. Whearty’s
need for the information contained in the video was minimal, as there was extensive testimony at
trial describing Dalmeny’s MMA training and the details of her MMA match on the weekend of
January 24. On the other hand, the video was prejudicial in that it showed Dalmeny engaged in
acts of physical violence in a sanctioned MMA fight, a situation entirely removed from
Whearty’s claim that she had suddenly struck him after taking her marijuana pipe. Because the
evidence was sufficiently prejudicial under Darden and the State’s interest in excluding the
prejudicial evidence outweighed Whearty’s need for the information contained in the video, we
hold that the trial court’s ruling excluding the evidence did not violate Whearty’s right to present
a defense. Darden, 145 Wn.2d at 622.
III. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Next, Whearty asserts that his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing
to adequately impeach Dalmeny (1) with her inconsistent statements about where on her head
Whearty had hit her and (2) about her testimony that her daughters did not exit the car while
Whearty was at a store calling Sarah, which testimony conflicted with Sarah’s and OD’s
testimony that OD had exited the car to purchase something from the store.6 We disagree.
6
Although Whearty titles this section of his brief, “Defense counsel provided ineffective
assistance in failing to impeach the complaining witness and arresting officer,” he neither assigns
error to the failure to impeach Mohr nor provides any argument on that ground. Suppl. Br. of
Appellant at 16. Accordingly, we do not address it.
10
No. 47489-1-II
To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, Whearty must show both deficient
performance and resulting prejudice. State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126, 130, 101 P.3d 80
(2004). To show deficient performance, Whearty must show that defense counsel’s performance
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d at 130. To show
resulting prejudice, Whearty must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
purportedly deficient performance, the outcome of his trial would have differed. Reichenbach,
153 Wn.2d at 130. If he fails to make either showing, we need not inquire further. State v.
Foster, 140 Wn. App. 266, 273, 166 P.3d 726 (2007).
Additionally, we strongly presume that counsel’s performance was reasonable and, to
rebut this presumption, “the defendant bears the burden of establishing the absence of any
‘conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel’s performance.’” State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17,
42, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011) (emphasis added) (quoting Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d at 130), cert.
denied, 135 S. Ct. 153 (2014). Ineffective assistance of counsel claims present mixed questions
of law and fact, which we review de novo. State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870, 883, 204 P.3d 916
(2009).
Whearty first contends that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach
Dalmeny about inconsistencies in her statements regarding where on her head Whearty had
allegedly hit her. We disagree. Dalmeny testified on direct examination that Whearty “started
punching me in the back of the head.” RP at 62. Then, on cross-examination, Whearty’s
defense counsel confronted Dalmeny about this testimony during the following exchange:
[Defense counsel]: Now, when you were on direct examination yesterday, you
pointed to the top of your head like this. Is that where he hit you, on the top of your
head?
[Dalmeny]: No. It was like here, the back of the head, the side.
11
No. 47489-1-II
[Defense counsel]: Okay. The side behind the ear?
[Dalmeny]: Yes.
[Defense counsel]: He hit you in the front side of the head?
[Dalmeny]: No. It was like here on the back side of the head.
[Defense counsel]: But it was the head for sure?
[Dalmeny]: Yes.
RP at 145. Defense counsel then confronted Dalmeny about her statement to police that Whearty
had punched her “in the side of the face.” RP at 146. Defense counsel argued during closing
that Dalmeny was not a credible witness in light of her inconsistent statements regarding the
location on her head where Whearty had allegedly hit her. Because defense counsel impeached
Dalmeny about her inconsistent statements, Whearty’s claim that defense counsel was ineffective
for failing to do so lacks merit.
Next, Whearty appears to argue that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to
confront Dalmeny about how her testimony had differed from Sarah and OD’s testimony
regarding whether OD had exited the car when Dalmeny called Sarah while parked at a store.
Again, we disagree.
Dalmeny testified that neither of her daughters had exited the car while she was parked at
the store speaking with Sarah. In contrast with this testimony, OD testified that she exited the
car to purchase a bottle of water for her mother and a hairbrush for herself. Sarah also testified
that, while speaking with Dalmeny, Dalmeny had told her OD was in the store purchasing
something. Although Dalmeny’s testimony differed from that of Sarah and OD, defense counsel
had a legitimate tactical reason for not recalling Dalmeny to confront her about her earlier
testimony. The contrasting testimony was already heard by the jury, and recalling Dalmeny to
confront her about it would only serve to allow Dalmeny to correct her earlier testimony. Rather
than presenting Dalmeny with the opportunity to correct her earlier testimony, defense counsel
12
No. 47489-1-II
could have conceivably made the tactical decision to let her testimony go uncorrected and then
argue that she was not a credible witness during closing argument. Defense counsel made this
argument at closing, stating:
But what’s Sarah tell you that [Dalmeny] leaves out? Because she was so
traumatically disturbed by this event that it was good it didn’t come out from her.
She stopped at the Justice Store, sent [OD], who is so traumatized by this event
apparently, sends her into the store and [OD] buys some water for her mom and a
hairbrush. That’s what Sarah tells you. That’s also what [OD] told you. [OD] told
you exactly what she went in and bought.
RP at 504-05. Because defense counsel had a legitimate tactical reason for not confronting
Dalmeny with her testimony that OD did not exit the car while at the store, Whearty cannot
demonstrate ineffective assistance on this ground.
IV. ER 106
Finally, Whearty contends that the trial court erred by sustaining the State’s hearsay
objections when defense counsel sought to elicit testimony from Mohr about what Whearty had
told him while being transported to jail. Specifically, Whearty argues that the trial court was
required to admit the hearsay testimony under ER 106. This argument fails for two reasons.
First, Whearty did not argue at trial that his hearsay statements to Mohr were admissible under
ER 106, and he cannot do so now for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Guloy, 104
Wn.2d 412, 422, 705 P.2d 1182 (1985) (“A party may only assign error in the appellate court on
the specific ground of the evidentiary objection made at trial.”). Second, ER 1067 applies only to
7
ER 106 provides:
When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a
party, an adverse party may require the party at that time to introduce any other
part, or any other writing or recorded statement, which ought in fairness to be
considered contemporaneously with it.
13
No. 47489-1-II
written or recorded statements and does not apply to oral testimony. State v. Perez, 139 Wn.
App. 522, 531, 161 P.3d 461 (2007).
Additionally, Whearty appears to argue that the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s
hearsay objections because Whearty’s statements to Mohr were not hearsay under ER
801(d)(1)(ii).8 Again, Whearty’s argument fails. First, Whearty did not argue at trial that his
statements to Mohr were not hearsay under ER 801(d)(1)(ii) and cannot do so for the first time
on appeal. See State v. Stacy, 181 Wn. App. 553, 568, 326 P.3d 136 (declining to address for the
first time on appeal appellant’s argument that his statements to police were admissible under ER
801(d)(1)(ii)), review denied, 181 Wn.2d 553 (2014). Further, by its terms ER 801(d)(1)(ii) did
not apply to Mohr’s testimony during the State’s case in chief, because Whearty, as the declarant
of the statement sought to be admitted, had not yet testified at trial.
Therefore, we hold that Whearty has not preserved his specific contentions with the trial
court’s hearsay ruling, and he cannot raise them for the first time in this appeal. Alternatively,
we hold that Whearty’s contentions with the trial court’s hearsay rulings lack merit.
For these reasons, we affirm Whearty’s convictions of unlawful imprisonment and fourth
8
ER 801(d)(1)(ii) provides in relevant part:
(d) A statement is not hearsay, if
(1) . . . [t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross
examination concerning the statement, and the statement is . . .
ii. consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or
implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or
motive.
14
No. 47489-1-II
degree assault.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2.06.040, it is so ordered.
BJORGEN, C.J.
We concur:
JOHANSON, J.
LEE, J.
15