State v. Laughlin

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. BROOKS OWEN LAUGHLIN, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

No. 79369-1-I

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE

December 7, 2020

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

CHUN, J. — The State brought numerous charges against Brooks Laughlin for repeatedly abusing his spouse, A.D. A jury found him guilty of three counts of second degree assault, one count of fourth degree assault, two counts of violating a no-contact order (NCO), one count of felony stalking, one count of felony harassment, and one count of misdemeanor harassment. The trial court imposed orders prohibiting Laughlin from contacting A.D. and her family. Laughlin appeals and the State cross-appeals.

We accept the State's concession that we should reverse the conviction for misdemeanor harassment. We also reverse the felony stalking conviction. And we vacate the 25-year NCO. We affirm in all other respects and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

Laughlin, a law enforcement officer, and A.D. began dating in 2015. They married in June 2016. Throughout their relationship, Laughlin discouraged A.D. from having a relationship with her family. A.D. was close with her family before she met Laughlin, but she did not invite them to the wedding and saw them increasingly less afterwards. Laughlin kept in constant contact with A.D. and tracked her location through her phone.

Laughlin first physically abused A.D. in September 2016 and continued to attack her afterwards. On various occasions, Laughlin strangled her, punched her in the face and head, slammed her head into the side of a bath tub, kicked her, and slapped her. A.D. did not report the abuse. During this time, A.D.'s family and coworkers noticed more than once that A.D. had bruises and swelling on her face. Laughlin also verbally abused A.D. and threatened to commit suicide on multiple occasions.

On February 9, 2018, A.D. went to her parents' house for dinner, which angered Laughlin. He repeatedly texted A.D., insisting that she leave. She left and the two met in a parking lot where Laughlin told A.D. that he wanted to "shoot [her] in the fucking face." This scared A.D., who told her family about this threat. Her family called the sheriff's office. A.D. spoke with the sheriff's office about the threat but omitted some information because she did not want them to arrest Laughlin. A.D. spent the night at her parents' house.

The next day, Laughlin appeared at A.D.'s parents' property. Law enforcement officers arrested him for trespass. Upon Laughlin's release, a Whatcom County District Court judge entered an NCO after considering the information from the incident report. The NCO prohibited Laughlin from contacting A.D. or her family. Despite the NCO, Laughlin and A.D. exchangedtexts, called each other, and met in person. Laughlin pushed A.D. to seek to modify the NCO and made threats against her family. Thinking it was the best way to protect her family, A.D. successfully requested modification of the NCO and Laughlin moved back into their house.

A month later, A.D. visited her sick grandmother. Laughlin became furious when she stayed longer than promised. A.D.'s sister worried about her and the next day gave her a book on escaping domestic violence. A.D. showed her sister photographs of her previous injuries and agreed to speak with law enforcement. The two went to the police department and A.D. gave a statement.

The State charged Laughlin with one count of felony stalking; two counts of violation of an NCO; one count of first degree criminal trespass; four counts of felony harassment; four counts of second degree assault; one count of misdemeanor harassment; and three counts of witness tampering.

At trial, the State introduced the testimonies of A.D., her family members, and law enforcement officers. The State also introduced the testimonies of an expert psychologist and an expert on domestic violence. Laughlin testified in his defense.

The jury found Laughlin guilty of one count of felony stalking; two counts of violation of an NCO; one count of felony harassment; three counts of second degree assault; one count of misdemeanor harassment; and one count of fourth degree assault (as a lesser-included offense of second degree assault). The jury found him not guilty as to the remaining counts.

Following the verdict, Laughlin moved for arrest of judgment or a new trial for the felony stalking charge. The trial court denied the motion, determining that the evidence sufficed to support finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Laughlin "repeatedly harassed" and "repeatedly followed" A.D.

Laughlin appeals.¹

II. ANALYSIS

A. Dr. Hobart's Testimony

Laughlin says that the trial court erred by admitting Dr. Hobart's expert testimony that Laughlin had acted like a typical domestic violence batterer. The State disagrees and says that Laughlin waived some of his arguments on this issue and that Dr. Hobart's testimony is otherwise admissible. We conclude that Laughlin did waive some of his arguments, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony.

We review a trial court's admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 797, 453 P.3d 696 (2019). "An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court exercises its discretion in an unreasonable manner or bases it on untenable grounds or reasons." State v. Dennington, 12 Wn. App. 2d 845, 851, 460 P.3d 643, review denied, 196 Wn.2d 1003, 471 P.3d 225 (2020).

1. Waiver

The State says that Laughlin waived his ER 404(a), ER 702, and profile testimony arguments by failing to object to the admission of Dr. Hobart's testimony on those grounds. Laughlin responds that he did object, both in his motion in limine and during trial. We agree with the State.

Generally, we will not consider an error in the admission of evidence if the party did not make a timely objection at trial. Matter of Det. of Belcher, 196 Wn. App. 592, 612, 385 P.3d 174 (2016), aff'd, 189 Wn.2d 280, 399 P.3d 1179 (2017). And "a party may assign error on appeal only on the specific ground of the evidentiary objection made at trial." State v. Scherf, 192 Wn.2d 350, 386, 429 P.3d 776 (2018). Our Supreme Court has "adopt[ed] a strict approach because trial counsel's failure to object to the error robs the court of the opportunity to correct the error." State v. Powell, 166 Wn.2d 73, 82, 206 P.3d 321 (2009). When a court has denied a motion in limine, a party typically need not renew the same objection at trial to preserve the objection. State v. Weber, 159 Wn.2d 252, 271, 149 P.3d 646 (2006). In cases involving evidence that is potentially profile testimony,² it is important to object during trial so the court can limit the profiling aspects of the testimony. State v. Avendano-Lopez, 79 Wn. App. 706, 711, 904 P.2d 324 (1995).

Laughlin did not preserve an objection on profile testimony, ER 404(a), or ER 702³ grounds. Laughlin moved in limine to limit Dr. Hobart's testimony, but his did not raise these issues.⁴ And though Laughlin made a series of objections at trial, none of them were based on profile testimony, ER 404(a), or ER 702.⁵

2. Admissibility of Dr. Hobart's Testimony

Preliminarily, Laughlin concedes on appeal that some of Dr. Hobart's testimony is admissible. Specifically, Laughlin concedes as to these statements: First, victims of abuse often do not leave abusive relationships because they want to make the relationship work, they have lost economic power and agency, they are alienated from support systems, and the abuser prevents them from leaving through physical control or tracking. Second, victims of abuse often do not report the abuse, especially when the abuser is a law enforcement officer because they are skilled at using violence and tracking people and because other law enforcement officers may be loyal to them. Third, a victim of abuse may continue to have contact with their abuser after a court issues an NCObecause an NCO is not a "magic shield" and the victim may be trying to prevent an escalation of violence by appeasing the abuser and keeping track of them.

But Laughlin says that most of Dr. Hobart's testimony was inadmissible under ER 404(a), ER 404(b), ER 702, and as profile testimony.⁶ As discussed above, Laughlin waived his ER 404(a), ER 702, and profile testimony arguments. Thus, we address only his ER 404(b) argument. The State says that Dr. Hobart's testimony did not violate ER 404(b). We agree with the State.

Testimony about a defendant's other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the defendant's character to show that they acted in conformity with that character. ER 404(b).

An expert on domestic violence, Dr. Hobart testified about the mental state of domestic violence victims. She did not testify about Laughlin's prior wrongful conduct. Instead, she explained generally the pattern of domestic abuse, using the "power and control wheel" to illustrate. The power and control wheel is a visual representation of the ways in which abuse may manifest in a relationship. It includes isolation; emotional abuse; intimidation; coercion and threats; male privilege; economic abuse; using children; and minimizing, denying, and blaming, all held together by the constant threat of violence. Dr. Hobart also answered a series of hypothetical questions, based on the facts of this case,about whether certain behaviors looked like a "hallmark of domestic violence" and about how a victim may be reluctant to leave or report abuse. Because the testimony did not address prior wrongful acts by Laughlin, the trial court acted within its discretion and did not violate ER 404(b) by admitting it.⁷

3. Harmless error

Even assuming the trial court erred in admitting Dr. Hobart's testimony, any error was harmless.

In determining whether a non-constitutional error was harmless, we ask if the outcome of the trial would have been materially different without the error. State v....