Ryan factors in Washington

2023Reviewed for abuse of discretion, see State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613, 665 , 790 P.2d 610 (1990), we affirm the trial court’s assessment of reliability under the Ryan factors.

2023Reviewed for abuse of discretion, see State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613, 665 , 790 P.2d 610 (1990), we affirm the trial court’s assessment of reliability under the Ryan factors.

2019The Ryan factors are: 4 No. 49658-5-II “(1) [W]hether there is an apparent motive to lie; (2) the general character of the declarant; (3) whether more than one person heard the statements; (4) whether the statements were made spontaneously; . . . (5) the timing of the declaration and the relationship between the declarant and the witness”[;] . . . [(6)] the [lack of any] express assertion about past fact[; (7) whether] cross examination could not show the declarant’s lack of knowledge [; (8) whether] the possibility of the declarant’s faulty recollection is remote[; and (9) whether] the circum

2019The Ryan factors are: 4 No. 49658-5-II “(1) [W]hether there is an apparent motive to lie; (2) the general character of the declarant; (3) whether more than one person heard the statements; (4) whether the statements were made spontaneously; . . . (5) the timing of the declaration and the relationship between the declarant and the witness”[;] . . . [(6)] the [lack of any] express assertion about past fact[; (7) whether] cross examination could not show the declarant’s lack of knowledge [; (8) whether] the possibility of the declarant’s faulty recollection is remote[; and (9) whether] the circum

2017The Ryan factors are the following: “(1) [W]hether there is an apparent motive to lie; (2) the general character of the declarant; (3) whether more than one person heard the statements; (4) whether the statements were made spontaneously; . . . (5) the timing of the declaration and the relationship between the declarant and the witness”[;] . . . [(6)] the [lack of any] express assertion about past fact[; (7) whether] cross-examination could not show the declarant's lack of knowledge[; (8) whether] the possibility of the declarant's faulty recollection is remote[; and (9) whether] the circumstan

2017The Ryan factors are the following: “(1) [W]hether there is an apparent motive to lie; (2) the general character of the declarant; (3) whether more than one person heard the statements; (4) whether the statements were made spontaneously; . . . (5) the timing of the declaration and the relationship between the declarant and the witness”[;] . . . [(6)] the [lack of any] express assertion about past fact[; (7) whether] cross-examination could not show the declarant's lack of knowledge[; (8) whether] the possibility of the declarant's faulty recollection is remote[; and (9) whether] the circumstan

2008We apply the Ryan factors to determine if a child's hearsay statements should be deemed reliable: "(1) [W]hether there is an apparent motive to lie; (2) the general character of the declarant; (3) whether more than one person heard the statements; (4) whether the statements were made spontaneously; and (5) the timing of the declaration and the relationship between the declarant and the witness[;] ... [(6)] the statement contains *1023 no express assertion about past fact[;] [(7)] cross examination could not show the declarant's lack of knowledge[;] [(8)] the possibility of the declarant's faul

2008We apply the Ryan factors to determine if a child's hearsay statements should be deemed reliable: "(1) [W]hether there is an apparent motive to lie; (2) the general character of the declarant; (3) whether more than one person heard the statements; (4) whether the statements were made spontaneously; and (5) the timing of the declaration and the relationship between the declarant and the witness[;] ... [(6)] the statement contains *1023 no express assertion about past fact[;] [(7)] cross examination could not show the declarant's lack of knowledge[;] [(8)] the possibility of the declarant's faul

2026App. 861, 880 , 214 P.3d 200 (2009) (describing Ryan factors).

2017App. 861, 880 , 214 P.3d 200 (2009) (citing State v. Ryan. 103 Wn.2d 165, 175-76 , 691 P.2d 197 (1984)). 19 State v. Woods. 154 Wn.2d 613, 623 , 114P.3d 1174 (2005) (plurality opinion). 20 Id, at 623-24 (quoting State v. Swan. 114 Wn.2d 613, 652 , 790 P.2d 610 (1990)). 8 No. 73699-0-1/9 Here, the trial court considered each of the Ryan factors and determined that the children's statements provided sufficient indicia of reliability for admission under RCW 9A.44.120.

2024Rather than challenge any of the court’s findings, Armenta contends, “A person’s competency at the time of the incident is an integral part of the Ryan analysis.” Armenta bases this claim on the statement in State v. Karpenski, 94 Wn.

2024Rather than challenge any of the court’s findings, Armenta contends, “A person’s competency at the time of the incident is an integral part of the Ryan analysis.” Armenta bases this claim on the statement in State v. Karpenski, 94 Wn.

1999See also In re Dependency of A.E.P., 135 Wash.2d at 230-31 , 956 P.2d 297 ("We recognize some of the Ryan factors have subsequently been criticized as being unhelpful in determining reliability"); Dependency of S.S., 61 Wash.App. at 497-99 , 814 P.2d 204 (criticizing all four Dutton factors as either unhelpful or encompassed in Parris factors); Borland, 57 Wash.App. at 16-20 , 786 P.2d 810 ( Dutton factors are not useful in determining which statements are admissible under RCW 9A.44.120); State v. Henderson, 48 Wash.App. 543 , 551 n. 5, 740 P.2d 329 (1987) ( Dutton factors not very helpful in

1999See also In re Dependency of A.E.P., 135 Wash.2d at 230-31 , 956 P.2d 297 ("We recognize some of the Ryan factors have subsequently been criticized as being unhelpful in determining reliability"); Dependency of S.S., 61 Wash.App. at 497-99 , 814 P.2d 204 (criticizing all four Dutton factors as either unhelpful or encompassed in Parris factors); Borland, 57 Wash.App. at 16-20 , 786 P.2d 810 ( Dutton factors are not useful in determining which statements are admissible under RCW 9A.44.120); State v. Henderson, 48 Wash.App. 543 , 551 n. 5, 740 P.2d 329 (1987) ( Dutton factors not very helpful in

2020State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 926 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007) (citing RAP 2.5(a)(3)).

2018In order to raise the objection for the first time on appeal, the appellant must show admission of the evidence was a “manifest error affecting a constitutional right.” State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 926 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007).

2020State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 926 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007) (citing RAP 2.5(a)(3)).

2018In order to raise the objection for the first time on appeal, the appellant must show admission of the evidence was a “manifest error affecting a constitutional right.” State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 926 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007).

2019Not every factor needs to be met for a statement to be sufficiently reliable; the factors need only be “‘substantially met.’” State v. Woods, 154 Wn.2d 613, 623-24 , 114 P.3d 1174 (2005) (quoting State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613, 652 , 790 P.2d 610 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1046 (1991)).

2019Not every factor needs to be met for a statement to be sufficiently reliable; the factors need only be “‘substantially met.’” State v. Woods, 154 Wn.2d 613, 623-24 , 114 P.3d 1174 (2005) (quoting State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613, 652 , 790 P.2d 610 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1046 (1991)).

2019Not every factor needs to be met for a statement to be sufficiently reliable; the factors need only be “‘substantially met.’” State v. Woods, 154 Wn.2d 613, 623-24 , 114 P.3d 1174 (2005) (quoting State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613, 652 , 790 P.2d 610 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1046 (1991)).

2019Not every factor needs to be met for a statement to be sufficiently reliable; the factors need only be “‘substantially met.’” State v. Woods, 154 Wn.2d 613, 623-24 , 114 P.3d 1174 (2005) (quoting State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613, 652 , 790 P.2d 610 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1046 (1991)).

2005"A finding that statements are within the statutory child abuse exception should not be reversed absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion." State v. Jackson, 42 Wash.App. 393, 396 , 711 P.2d 1086 (1985). ¶ 33 In this case, the children testified, so the issue is whether their statements were sufficiently reliable. [1] Reliability is analyzed according to the nine Ryan factors.

2005App. 393, 396 , 711 P.2d 1086 (1985). ¶33 In this case, the children testified, so the issue is whether their statements were sufficiently reliable. 1 Reliability is analyzed according to the nine Ryan factors.

1998We recognize some of the Ryan factors have subsequently been criticized as being unhelpful in determining reliability, see, e.g., State v. Swan, 114 Wash.2d 613, 650-51 , 790 P.2d 610 (1990); State v. Leavitt, 111 Wash.2d 66, 75 , 758 P.2d 982 (1988); In re Dependency of S.S., 61 Wash.App. 488, 499 , 814 P.2d 204 (1991), but we decline to reevaluate the Ryan factors at this time because the issues presented here are easily resolved within the Ryan framework.

1998We recognize some of the Ryan factors have subsequently been criticized as being unhelpful in determining reliability, see, e.g., State v. Swan, 114 Wash.2d 613, 650-51 , 790 P.2d 610 (1990); State v. Leavitt, 111 Wash.2d 66, 75 , 758 P.2d 982 (1988); In re Dependency of S.S., 61 Wash.App. 488, 499 , 814 P.2d 204 (1991), but we decline to reevaluate the Ryan factors at this time because the issues presented here are easily resolved within the Ryan framework.

2023When applying the child hearsay statute, “the best sort of corroborative evidence would be direct physical or testimonial evidence of the abuse.” State v. Jones, 112 Wn.2d 488, 495 , 772 P.2d 496 (1989).

2023When applying the child hearsay statute, “the best sort of corroborative evidence would be direct physical or testimonial evidence of the abuse.” State v. Jones, 112 Wn.2d 488, 495 , 772 P.2d 496 (1989).

2020Allen, 70 Wn.2d at 692 ; S.J.W., 170 Wn.2d at 99 .

2020Allen, 70 Wn.2d at 692 ; S.J.W., 170 Wn.2d at 99 .

2020For the reasons discussed, these arguments again fail to show the trial court abused its discretion. 59 RCW 9A.44.083(1). 60 Johnson, 188 Wn.2d at 762 (citing Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201 ; State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980) (plurality op.)). 61 Circumstantial evidence can prove that a defendant was not married to his victim.

2020For the reasons discussed, these arguments again fail to show the trial court abused its discretion. 59 RCW 9A.44.083(1). 60 Johnson, 188 Wn.2d at 762 (citing Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201 ; State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980) (plurality op.)). 61 Circumstantial evidence can prove that a defendant was not married to his victim.

2020Allen, 70 Wn.2d at 692 ; S.J.W., 170 Wn.2d at 99 .

2020Allen, 70 Wn.2d at 692 ; S.J.W., 170 Wn.2d at 99 .

2020For the reasons discussed, these arguments again fail to show the trial court abused its discretion. 59 RCW 9A.44.083(1). 60 Johnson, 188 Wn.2d at 762 (citing Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201 ; State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980) (plurality op.)). 61 Circumstantial evidence can prove that a defendant was not married to his victim.

2019Rush, 190 Wn.

2019Rush, 190 Wn.