|
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).
Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
| Docket Number: |
67425-1 |
| Title of Case: |
State Of Washington, Respondent V. David Solomona, Appellant |
| File Date: |
04/16/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
| Appeal from King County Superior Court |
| Docket No: | 11-1-01460-2 |
| Judgment or order under review |
| Date filed: | 07/08/2011 |
| Judge signing: | Honorable Jay vs White |
JUDGES
------
| Authored by | Stephen J. Dwyer |
| Concurring: | Ronald Cox |
| J. Robert Leach |
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s) |
| | Washington Appellate Project |
| | Attorney at Law |
| | 1511 Third Avenue |
| | Suite 701 |
| | Seattle, WA, 98101 |
|
| | Thomas Michael Kummerow |
| | Washington Appellate Project |
| | 1511 3rd Ave Ste 701 |
| | Seattle, WA, 98101-3647 |
|
| | David Siona T Solomona (Appearing Pro Se) |
| | Ba# 211001153 |
| | Rjc |
| | 620 West James |
| | Kent, WA, 98032 |
Counsel for Respondent(s) |
| | Prosecuting Atty King County |
| | King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor |
| | W554 King County Courthouse |
| | 516 Third Avenue |
| | Seattle, WA, 98104 |
|
| | Randi J Austell |
| | Attorney at Law |
| | King Co Pros Attorney |
| | 516 3rd Ave Ste 5th |
| | Seattle, WA, 98104-2385 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 67425-1-I
Respondent, )
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
DAVID S. SOLOMONA, )
)
Appellant. ) FILED: April 16, 2012
)
Per Curiam. David Solomona appeals his convictions for eight counts of
felony violation of a court order and one count of witness tampering. He
contends the trial court violated his constitutional right to testify when, after the
close of the evidence but prior to closing arguments, it denied his pro se request
to reopen and allow him to testify. The State concedes error, noting that the
trial was on schedule and would not have been significantly lengthened by
Solomona's testimony, the jury had not been charged when he asked to testify,
the State would have suffered no prejudice, and there was no indication that his
testimony would have hurt his defense. The State also asserts that the trial
prosecutor "should not have objected to Solomona's request" and that the trial
court's decision "was influenced by the State's misguided objection[.]" We
accept the State's concession.
No. 67425-1-I/2
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
For the Court:
-2-
|