categorical bar in Washington

2025“ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to admission of evidence [of a prior bad act] for the purpose of proving a person’s character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character.” State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 420 , 269 P.3d 207 (2012) (citing State v. Saltarelli, 98 Wn.2d 358, 362 , 655 P.2d 697 (1982)).

2025“ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to admission of evidence [of a prior bad act] for the purpose of proving a person’s character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character.” State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 420 , 269 P.3d 207 (2012) (citing State v. Saltarelli, 98 Wn.2d 358, 362 , 655 P.2d 697 (1982)).

2021Dissent at 9 (citing Bassett, 192 Wn.2d at 85-86 , for the categorical bar test, and State v. Fain, 94 Wn.2d 387, 397 , 617 P.2d 720 (1980), for the proportionality test).

2021Dissent at 9 (citing Bassett, 192 Wn.2d at 85-86 , for the categorical bar test, and State v. Fain, 94 Wn.2d 387, 397 , 617 P.2d 720 (1980), for the proportionality test).

2018The categorical bar analysis considers (1) whether there is objective indicia of a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue and (2) the court's own independent judgment based on " 'the standards elaborated by controlling precedents and by the [c]ourt's own understanding *351 and interpretation of the [cruel punishment provision]'s text, history, ... and purpose.' " Graham, 560 U.S. at 61 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 (quoting Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 , 421, 128 S.Ct. 2641 , 171 L.Ed.2d 525 (2008) ). ¶ 28 The United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the categorical bar ana

2018The categorical bar analysis considers (1) whether there is objective indicia of a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue and (2) the court's own independent judgment based on " 'the standards elaborated by controlling precedents and by the [c]ourt's own understanding *351 and interpretation of the [cruel punishment provision]'s text, history, ... and purpose.' " Graham, 560 U.S. at 61 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 (quoting Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 , 421, 128 S.Ct. 2641 , 171 L.Ed.2d 525 (2008) ). ¶ 28 The United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the categorical bar ana

2021Instead, he asserts that courts already consider mental illness in assessing an individual’s 4 In Schmeling, the court noted that the categorical bar analysis had been applied only in cases involving the death penalty or juvenile offenders and declined to apply it to the defendant’s claim regarding punishment of adult drug offenders. 191 Wn.

2016The categorical analysis addresses whether a particular punishment is categorically unconstitutional given the Schmeling, 191 Wn.

2017We review the trial court's interpretation of ER 404(b) de novo as a matter of law.39 If the trial court interprets ER 404(b) correctly, we review the ruling to admit or exclude evidence of misconduct for an abuse of discretion.4° "A trial court abuses its discretion where it fails to abide by the rule's requirements."41 "ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to admission of evidence for the purpose of proving a person's character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character."42 The trial court must "(1) find by a preponderance of the evidence that the misconduct occurred,(2) i

2014Interpretation of a rule of evidence presents a question of law that we review de novo.2 If the trial court correctly interpreted the rule, this court reviews the trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion.3 A trial court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on untenable grounds or reasons.4 "ER 404(b)5 is a categorical bar to admission of evidence for the purpose of proving a person's character and showing that the person acted in conformity 2 State v. Foxhoven. 161 Wn.2d 168, 174 , 163 P.3d 786 (2007). 3 Foxhoven. 161 Wn.2d at 174 ; State v. Gres

2026State v. Reynolds, 2 Wn.3d 195 , 203- 04, 535 P.3d 427 (2023).

2025Further, “while the showing of a national consensus is entitled to great weight, it is ‘not itself determinative’ of whether a punishment is cruel.” State v. Reynolds, 2 Wn.3d 195 , 207, 535 P.3d 427 (2023) (internal quotations marks omitted) (quoting State v. Moretti, 193 Wn.2d 809, 823 , 446 P.3d 609 (2019).

2025As for the first consideration, Hardy contends that although the Monschke court found it unnecessary to engage with a categorical bar test given its findings in Bassett (i.e., that mandatory LWOP is unconstitutionally cruel as applied to juveniles), it 14 No. 85086-5-I/15 nevertheless highlighted there is a “national trend worthy of note” to carve out rehabilitative space for “young” or “youthful” offenders as old as their mid-20s, citing Monschke, 197 Wn.2d at 312 n.8 (citing legal developments in seven states and three white papers).

2025As this statute is unchallenged and presumptively constitutional, “[i]t would be an abuse of discretion for a judge to sentence an 18-, 19-, or 20-year-old to a sentence that is less than what a judge is required to impose on a 14-year-old for aggravated first degree murder.” Id. 9 No. 85084-9-I/10 Monschke, rather than impose a categorical bar, Miller “ ‘mandate[d] only that a sentencer follow a certain process—considering an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics—before imposing a particular penalty.’ ” Monschke, 197 Wn.2d at 327 (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 483 ).

2018There Is a Strong and Rapid Trend of Abandoning Juvenile Life without Parole Sentences ¶ 32 The first step in the categorical bar analysis is to determine whether there is a national consensus against sentencing juveniles to life without parole by looking at " 'objective indicia of society's standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice.' " Graham, 560 U.S. at 61 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 (quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 563 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 ). " '[T]he clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country's legislatures.' " Id.

2018There Is a Strong and Rapid Trend of Abandoning Juvenile Life without Parole Sentences ¶ 32 The first step in the categorical bar analysis is to determine whether there is a national consensus against sentencing juveniles to life without parole by looking at " 'objective indicia of society's standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice.' " Graham, 560 U.S. at 61 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 (quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 563 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 ). " '[T]he clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country's legislatures.' " Id.

2020We review a trial court’s interpretation of an evidentiary rule de novo.3 If the trial court interpreted the rule correctly, we review its decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.4 “ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to admission of evidence for the purpose of proving a person’s character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character.”5 But character evidence can be admitted for any number of proper purposes, such as showing the existence of a common scheme or plan or as intent evidence.6 To admit character evidence, the trial court must “(1) find by a p

2020We review a trial court’s interpretation of an evidentiary rule de novo.3 If the trial court interpreted the rule correctly, we review its decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.4 “ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to admission of evidence for the purpose of proving a person’s character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character.”5 But character evidence can be admitted for any number of proper purposes, such as showing the existence of a common scheme or plan or as intent evidence.6 To admit character evidence, the trial court must “(1) find by a p

2019Whether article I, section 22 provides greater protections to defendants than the federal constitution in this context remains unanswered. ¶49 Second, I note that the United States Supreme Court has not "adopt[ed] a categorical rule excluding [statements to individuals who are not law enforcement officers] from the Sixth Amendment's reach." Ohio v. Clark, --- U.S. ----, 135 S. Ct. 2173 , 2181, 192 L.

2019Whether article I, section 22 provides greater protections to defendants than the federal constitution in this context remains unanswered. ¶49 Second, I note that the United States Supreme Court has not "adopt[ed] a categorical rule excluding [statements to individuals who are not law enforcement officers] from the Sixth Amendment's reach." Ohio v. Clark, --- U.S. ----, 135 S. Ct. 2173 , 2181, 192 L.

2018There Is a Strong and Rapid Trend of Abandoning Juvenile Life without Parole Sentences ¶ 32 The first step in the categorical bar analysis is to determine whether there is a national consensus against sentencing juveniles to life without parole by looking at " 'objective indicia of society's standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice.' " Graham, 560 U.S. at 61 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 (quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 563 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 ). " '[T]he clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country's legislatures.' " Id.

2018There Is a Strong and Rapid Trend of Abandoning Juvenile Life without Parole Sentences ¶ 32 The first step in the categorical bar analysis is to determine whether there is a national consensus against sentencing juveniles to life without parole by looking at " 'objective indicia of society's standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice.' " Graham, 560 U.S. at 61 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 (quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 563 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 ). " '[T]he clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country's legislatures.' " Id.

2024But these authorities address the requirement that the court enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law in decline hearings, in Miller-fix hearings, and when imposing an exceptional sentence, not when sentencing a defendant to a standard range sentence. 28 Amici joins in this argument. 29 State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986). 43 No. 56917-5-II (2018) (discussing the application of the categorical bar analysis after determining that article I, section 14 provides greater protection than the Eighth Amendment).

2024But these authorities address the requirement that the court enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law in decline hearings, in Miller-fix hearings, and when imposing an exceptional sentence, not when sentencing a defendant to a standard range sentence. 28 Amici joins in this argument. 29 State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986). 43 No. 56917-5-II (2018) (discussing the application of the categorical bar analysis after determining that article I, section 14 provides greater protection than the Eighth Amendment).

2019When the trial court has interpreted the rule correctly, we review the "determination to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion." Id. (citing Foxhoven, 161 Wn.2d at 174 ). "'ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to admission of evidence [of a prior bad act] for the purpose of proving a person's character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character." State v. Gunderson, 181 Wn.2d 916, 922 , 337 P.3d 1090 (2014)(quoting Gresham, 173 Wn.2d at 420 ).

2019When the trial court has interpreted the rule correctly, we review the "determination to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion." Id. (citing Foxhoven, 161 Wn.2d at 174 ). "'ER 404(b) is a categorical bar to admission of evidence [of a prior bad act] for the purpose of proving a person's character and showing that the person acted in conformity with that character." State v. Gunderson, 181 Wn.2d 916, 922 , 337 P.3d 1090 (2014)(quoting Gresham, 173 Wn.2d at 420 ).

2019In its analysis, the Court noted that a search incident to arrest was a categorical exception to the warrant requirement and did “not require an assessment of whether the policy justifications underlying the exception, which may include exigency-based considerations, are implicated in a particular case.” Id. at 150 n.3.

2019In its analysis, the Court noted that a search incident to arrest was a categorical exception to the warrant requirement and did “not require an assessment of whether the policy justifications underlying the exception, which may include exigency-based considerations, are implicated in a particular case.” Id. at 150 n.3.

2019But the Court also distinguished between data and physical objects, observing that while the categorical rule authorizing searches of a person incident to arrest "strikes the appropriate balance in the context of physical objects, neither of its rationales has much force with respect to digital content on cell phones." Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2484 .

2015In Bvrd, decided in 2013, the Washington Supreme Court considered the validity of a warrantless search of Byrd's purse, seized from her lap and set on the ground by the police when arresting Byrd.19 Following the categorical rule announced in United States v. Robinson,20 the court held that the lawful arrest of Byrd justified the search of her person and all objects on or closely associated with her person at the time of her arrest, including her purse.21 The court expressly rejected any need to further justify this search by concerns for officer safety or evidence preservation concerns.22 17

2014App. 397, 400 , 717 P.2d 766 (1986) (rejecting the "once a thief, always a thief rationale for admitting evidence). 15 State v. DeVincentis, 150Wn.2d11, 17, 74 P.3d 119 (2003): State v. Wilson, 144 Wn.

2014It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. -5- NO. 68467-1-1/6 with that character."6 Though "there are no 'exceptions' to this rule,"7 the rule permits a court to admit prior misconduct for certain other purposes, such as proof ofmotive, plan, or identity.8 To admit such evidence, the trial court must (1) find by a preponderance of the evidence that the misconduct occurred, (2) identify the purpose for which the evidence is offered, (3) determine if the evidence is

2013Although Midwest Sporting Goods held that it could not "condone an arrangement where an insurer can unilaterally modify its contract, through a reservation of rights, to allow for reimbursement of defense costs in the event a court later finds that the insurer owes no duty to defend," 828 N.E.2d at 1102 , none of the other cases the majority relies on provides such unequivocal support to sustain, factually or legally, a categorical rule against recoupment. 8 remains in effect and defendant is required to pay attorneys' fees and defense costs, subject to recoupment in the event it is ultimately

2013Although Midwest Sporting Goods held that it could not “condone an arrangement where an insurer can unilaterally modify its contract, through a reservation of rights, to allow for reimbursement of defense costs in the event a court later finds that the insurer owes no duty to defend,” 828 N.E.2d at 1102 , none of the other cases the majority relies on provides such unequivocal support to sustain, factually or legally, a categorical rule against recoupment. 13 ¶73 In Shoshone First Bank v. Pacific Employers Insurance Co., 2 P.3d 510, 512 (Wyo. 2000), the Wyoming Supreme Court rejected recoupmen

2012We suggest that perhaps the better rule would be to subject the authors of any autopsy report or derivative report to confrontation clause requirements for testimonial statements. [11] Such a categorical rule would serve as a bulwark against the "unpardonable vice" of amorphous, multifactor tests with the "demonstrated capacity to admit core testimonial statements that the [c]onfrontation [c]lause plainly meant to exclude." Crawford, 541 U.S. at 63 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . ¶ 38 A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington

2012We suggest that perhaps the better rule would be to subject the authors of any autopsy report or derivative report to confrontation clause requirements for testimonial statements. [11] Such a categorical rule would serve as a bulwark against the "unpardonable vice" of amorphous, multifactor tests with the "demonstrated capacity to admit core testimonial statements that the [c]onfrontation [c]lause plainly meant to exclude." Crawford, 541 U.S. at 63 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . ¶ 38 A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington