Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts

On December 2, 2010, the defense requested a 35 -day continuance
to January 6, 2011, which the court granted because the defense attorney
was in trial in another case at the time. CP 165; Appendix G. The State
was ready for trial that day. CP 165; Appendix G.
Finally, on January 6, 2011, the court moved for a continuance of
seven days to January 13, 2011 because it was conducting the trial of
another case, CP 166; 06/11/ 2011 RP 3-7; Appendix H,
On January 13, 2011, this case was called for trial, RP 3-5, and the
court and parties discussed the proposed juror questionnaire. RP 19 -30.
The defendant moved to dismiss for violation of speedy trial or
time for trial provisions, RP 30-34. The court found that there was good
cause for each continuance granted and denied the motion. RP 34.
The defendant moved to exclude evidence of his past sex offense,
arguing that RCW 10.58. 090 was unconstitutional, and that such evidence
was not otherwise admissible under RCW 10,58. 090 or ER 404, RP 38-
46, 56-57, 59. The State argued that such evidence was admissible under
both provisions. RP 48-56, 59. See CP 6, 77-93. The court excluded
evidence of the prior conviction. RP 85-90. See RP 58,
The court considered motions in fimine, RP 60-92, 250-70; CP 58-
59, 94-98, including defendant's motion to "exclude any expert opinion
regarding the credibility of the alleged victim, and any expert opinion on
whether the alleged victim has been sexually assaulted." RP 69-71. The
3 - optest-prosmiscsptrialmcdaniel doc