Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts

court held that such evidence was not relevant and more prejudicial than
probative. RP 301.
The court's decisions to exclude the proposed evidence were
proper and not a manifest abuse of discretion,
First, with respect to McCutcheon's drug use, there was no
showing, as required by the case law, that McCutcheon "was using or was
influenced by the drugs at the time of the occurrence which is the subject
of the testimony." Thomas, 150 Wn.2d at 863-64.
In fact, the defendant explicitly stated that he was seeking to admit
evidence of drug use before and after the alleged incident, stating that he
sought to admit evidence of McCutcheon's alleged "drug use in the time
period leading up to the disclosure," RP 254, and to admit evidence of
McCutcheon's current " use of drugs, her current involvement in treatment,
her current use of methadone." RP 257. Although it is obviously possible
that some of this drug use occurred at the time of the charged molestation,
the defendant never made any showing that McCutcheon was using or
influenced by drugs at the time of that molestation.
Indeed, because McCutcheon was not present when the child
molestation at issue occurred, see RP 347-49, 353, and was not a witness
to that molestation, her drug use could not have affected her perception or
27 - optest-prosm iscsptrial mcdaniel. - doc