Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts

C. ARGUMENT.
1. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ADMITTED THE
TESTIMONY OF CORNELIA THOMAS BECAUSE
SUCH TESTIMONY PROVIDED THE NECESSARY
CONTEXT THAT ENABLED THE JURY TO ACCESS
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE VICTIM'S
INTERVIEW RESPONSES AND DID NOT
CONSTITUTE IMPROPER OPINION TESTIMONY ON
THE VERACITY OF THE VICTIM,
If properly preserved for appeal, a trial court's decision regarding
the admissibility of testimonial evidence, including opinion testimony,
will only be reversed for a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Aguirre,
168 Wn,2d 350, 359-61, 229 P.3d 669 (2010); State v. Young, 158 Wn.
App. 707, 243 P.3d, 172,179 (201 State v. George, 150 Wn. App. 110,
117, 206 P.3d 697 (2009). The trial court abuses its discretion "if no
reasonable person would have decided the matter as the trial court did."
State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 856, 83 P.3d 970 (2004), review
granted in part, 163 Wn.2d 1033, 187 P.3d 269 (2008). Where "
reasonable persons could take differing views regarding the propriety of
the trial court's actions, the trial court has not abused its discretion." State
v. Demery, 144 Wn.2d 753, 758, 30 P.3d 1278 (2001). That " is, such
judgments merit reversal only if the trial court acts on unreasonable or
untenable grounds," Aguirre, 168 Wn.2d at 359. However, such a
decision may be affirmed on any ground the record adequately supports,
even if the trial court did not consider that ground, State v. Costich, 152
14 - optest-pros m isesptrial-mcdan ic 1. doc