Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                       DIVISION  II

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                             No.  40534-2-II

                             Respondent,

       v.

TIMOTHY J. DOBBS,                                          CONSOLIDATED WITH

                             Appellant.
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint                          No.  40636-5-II
Petition of

                                                         PART PUBLISHED OPINION
TIMOTHY J. DOBBS,

                             Petitioner.

       Worswick, A.C.J.  -- Timothy J. Dobbs appeals multiple felony convictions,1 claiming that 

the trial court erred by admitting the statements of a missing witness under the doctrine of 

forfeiture by wrongdoing.  Dobbs argues that (1) the doctrine did not apply in his case and (2)

even if the doctrine applied, the State was required to show that a hearsay exception applied as a 

prerequisite to the admissibility of the victim's statements.  In a statement of additional grounds

and a personal restraint petition, Dobbs challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.  We affirm his 

1 The trial court convicted Dobbs of stalking -- domestic violence with a deadly weapon 
enhancement; felony harassment -- domestic violence; intimidating a witness -- domestic violence;
drive by shooting -- domestic violence; first degree unlawful possession of a firearm; and 
obstructing a law enforcement officer. 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

convictions and deny his petition.

                                             Facts

       In 2009, Dobbs was involved in a tumultuous relationship with C.R. On November 7, 

2009, Longview Police Officer Matthew Headley responded to a domestic violence report at 4:48 

am in response to C.R.'s call from her garage apartment. There, Officer Headley spoke with 

C.R., who told him that her ex-boyfriend had just been there and had slashed the tires on her car.  

She explained that he had come to her home and beat on the door asking to be let in.  She did not 

let him in and they argued through the door until he eventually left, after which she heard a hissing 

noise and found her car tires flat.  She identified Timothy Dobbs as her ex-boyfriend.  A later 

investigation revealed puncture marks on the tires.

       C.R. expressed her fear of Dobbs, explaining that he had been following her the past few 

days and that he was carrying a weapon.  She said that he had threatened to shoot her if she 

would not be his girl friend anymore.  While Officer Headley was speaking with C.R., she 

received text messages and a telephone call from Dobbs.  During that telephone call, Dobbs told 

her, "I warned you not to call the police."  1 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 98.  After she 

repeatedly asked him not to call her anymore, he said, "You're going to get it," and hung up.  1 

RP at 98.  C.R. then told Officer Headley that Dobbs had previously threatened to shoot up the 

house and everyone in it.

       On November 10, 2009, Officer Nicholas Woodard responded to a call to C.R.'s 

residence.  C.R. complained that Dobbs was still stalking her but that he had fled when the police 

arrived.  She was hysterical and she implored Officer Woodard to find Dobbs, saying that if they 

                                               2 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

did not, the police would find her dead.  C.R. showed Officer Woodard a note that she said 

Dobbs had left her.  It read:

       Last days.  The countdown on your . . . ass. You should know me by now, [C.R.]. 
       You [f***ed] up and tripped with . . . the wrong brother. You will regret what has 
        -- what you did and said to me. You never loved me. You never cared about me 
       and now you will reap a world of trouble and pain. Number 1, you can apologize 
       to me and talk with me face-to-face or Number 2, you know you can't and won't 
       be (inaudible) here in Longview or Washington. I'm going all out on this with you. 
       You're [f***ed up, b***ch].[2]

1 RP at 120.  On the back of the note was the letter "D" followed by spaces and then the phrase

"is on you, [b***ch]."  1 RP at 120.

       Later that day, James Applebury, who lived in the home adjacent to C.R.'s garage 

apartment, saw a black man, who appeared to him to be Dobbs, leave in a black car.  A minute or 

so later, he heard gunshots in the alley, looked out the window, and saw a black man getting into 

his car.  Applebury thought it was the same man he had just seen leaving.  Applebury called the 

police.

       That evening, Applebury was home when C.R. ran into his house, screaming, "He's got a 

gun."  1 RP at 42-43.  Applebury could see Dobbs in C.R.'s apartment holding a gun in his hand 

while talking with C.R.'s sister.  When someone stated that Dobbs was leaving, Applebury looked 

out and saw Dobbs going over a fence into the neighbor's yard.

       Applebury's wife, Sarah Ellis, was sitting on the porch when she saw Dobbs arrive.  She 

went inside to tell her husband and when she came back outside, Dobbs was in C.R.'s apartment.  

Minutes later, C.R. ran into their house and yelled, "He's here.  He's here.  He has a gun." 1 RP 

2 Dobbs did not designate this note as part of the record on appeal.  Officer Woodard read it at 
trial.

                                               3 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

at 72.

       Officer Woodard responded to Applebury's call and saw Dobbs fleeing.  Officer Woodard 

yelled for Dobbs to stop but Dobbs ran between the houses, over the fence, down the alley, and 

disappeared.  Using a police dog, Officer Timothy Deisher tracked Dobbs to a laundromat and 

arrested him.

       Officer Woodard interviewed C.R. again on November 11.  During that interview, she 

played two telephone messages that Dobbs had left on her phone.  One was from November 10 

and the other was from after his arrest.  During the first, Dobbs said, "You heard that.  That was 

me and that's what I can do."  1 RP at 123.  C.R. understood this to be referring to the bullets 

Dobbs shot into her home.  In the second phone call, which originated from the jail, Dobbs 

pleaded with her not to go forward with the charges and threatened to harm her if she did.

       C.R. also showed Officer Woodard two text messages Dobbs had sent her.  The first said, 

"Next time it is you, [b***ch].  On, Bloods."  1 RP at 126.  The other said, "[B***ch], you move 

and there will be hell to pay.  Plus, my bro lives down there and he's a known figure.  You can't 

get away from me.  I told you you're mines [sic]."  1 RP at 126-27.

       Sergeant Michael Hallowell retrieved a revolver from Ken Norton, Applebury's neighbor, 

who testified that he found it in his backyard the morning of November 11.  Sergeant Hallowell

also interviewed Dobbs.  Dobbs told him that the gun he had with him at C.R.'s was a toy gun 

and he denied slashing C.R.'s car tires.  Dobbs explained that C.R. had a lot of enemies and that

any one of them could have done it.

       Dobbs waived his right to a jury trial.  On the first day of Dobbs's trial, the State explained 

                                               4 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

that it had subpoenaed C.R. to appear at 10:30 am but that she was not there.  Because the State 

had served the subpoena, the trial court issued a material witness arrest warrant.  Officer Headley 

later testified that he had contacted C.R. at her home the prior night and had reminded her to be in 

court at 9:00 am. C.R. responded, "Okay" and then closed the door.  1 RP at 105-06.

       On the second day of trial, Sergeant Hallowell testified about his efforts to contact C.R. 

the previous night and before trial.  Sergeant Hallowell contacted C.R.'s acquaintances, had other 

police officers go to her home twice, and personally went to her home twice; once was before trial 

that morning.

       The State argued that Dobbs's misconduct was the reason C.R. did not appear to testify 

and that Dobbs had forfeited his right to challenge the admission of her statements as inadmissible 

hearsay.  Dobbs argued that the State had presented no evidence that C.R. did not show up 

because she was afraid.  Further it argued that the State had not shown sufficient foundation to 

admit the note, the text messages, and the telephone calls.

       The trial court ruled:

           Clear, cogent and convincing evidence.  I'm satisfied that there is a sufficient 
       basis that the defendant's conduct is the fact to why she is not here. There is 
       testimony that she felt he was -- the defendant was following her.  She knew he 
       carried a weapon.  Others had seen a black handgun.  She had threatened to -- he 
       had threatened to shoot her in the past, if she wouldn't let him be her boyfriend. 
       She said she was receiving text messages calling her names.  There is evidence 
       that -- I'm deciding this by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.  I have not 
       decided this case based upon beyond a reasonable doubt.  So, that should be 
       emphasized.  There is the -- she believed it was the defendant that punctured her 
       tires. She said she believed the defendant would -- he would hurt her because of 
       what she had said in the -- because of what he had said in the past, she believed he 
       would shoot her.  He had a handgun.  So, I think that based upon the evidence that 
       is in front of this Court, it is clear, cogent and convincing that she was afraid of 
       him and that's why she isn't here to testify.  And, that based on that evidence, he 

                                               5 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

       does forfeit the right to object on the confrontation issues, not as to the basis for 
       any hearsay.

2 RP at 255-56.  After further discussion, the trial court ruled:

           Well, considering the Fallentine[3] decision, which I think is the -- it's a critical 
       decision.  It's based on a Supreme Court decision of Mason,[4] and, it talks about 
       reflexive forfeiture being a legitimate basis for the -- the concept of forfeiture by 
       wrongdoing.  And, this case is -- has a stronger basis than I think the Fallentine
       decision.
           And then, you get to footnote 34 that says that there is also a waiver of 
       hearsay objections if the Court finds forfeiture by wrongdoing. I think it resolves 
       the issue with a broad brush.
           I will make specific findings.  I don't find that these are excited utterances. I 
       don't think they meet the level.  There is some nervousness, there is some anxiety. 
       There is not -- not -- she is not hysterical.  So, I don't think it rises to the level of 
       trustworthiness that you would necessarily find as that exception to the hearsay 
       rule.  And, all the exceptions do require that if you are looking at exceptions to the 
       hearsay rule, which apparently, under Fallentine, we're not.

2 RP at 282.

       The trial court found Dobbs guilty of stalking, felony harassment, intimidating a witness, 

drive-by shooting, unlawful possession of a firearm, and obstructing law enforcement.  It found 

him not guilty of second degree assault and first degree burglary.

3 State v. Fallentine, 149 Wn. App. 614, 215 P.3d 945 (2009).

4 State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910, 162 P.3d 396 (2007) (Sanders, J. dissenting), cert. denied, 553 
U.S. 1035 (2008).

                                               6 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

                                           Discussion

                                 I.  Forfeiture By Wrongdoing

       The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing holds that a criminal defendant waives his Sixth 

Amendment confrontation rights if the defendant is responsible for the witness's absence at trial.  

State v. Mason, 160 Wn.2d 910, 924, 162 P.3d 396 (2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1035 (2008).  

Once the State shows that the defendant's conduct is the reason for the witness's absence, the 

State may introduce the witness's out-of-court statements.  Mason, 160 Wn.2d at 924.  To apply 

this doctrine, the State must prove the causal link between the defendant's conduct and the 

witness's absence by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.  Mason, 160 Wn.2d at 926-27.

       Dobbs argues that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of forfeiture by 

wrongdoing because the State failed to present direct evidence that Dobbs procured C.R.'s 

unavailability or establish any causal link between his alleged malfeasance and her absence at trial.  

We disagree.  

       Dobbs argues that (1) the trial court, in applying the doctrine, should have considered only 

actions Dobbs took after the State initiated criminal proceedings; (2) the State did not prove by 

clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that Dobbs's actions were designed to prevent C.R. from 

testifying at his trial; and (3) the State failed to present any evidence that Dobbs's threats were the 

reason she did not testify.  Additionally, Dobbs suggests that the reason C.R. did not testify is 

because she may have resumed her relationship with him and posits that domestic violence victims 

often return to their abusers.

       We review the trial court's finding that Dobbs's actions were intended to keep C.R. from 

                                               7 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

testifying against him for substantial evidence in the record that could reasonably be found to be 

clear, cogent, and convincing.  State v. Fallentine, 149 Wn. App. 614, 620-21, 215 P.3d 945

(2009) (citing In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 209, 728 P.2d 138 (1986)).  

A.     Prior Acts

       Dobbs argues that the trial court could consider only those actions he took after the State 

initiated criminal proceedings.  We disagree.

       There is no rule that the trial court may consider only acts occurring after the defendant is 

charged in deciding whether the forfeiture doctrine applies.  Dobbs cites no such case and the 

Supreme Court suggests that the trial court can consider prior events:

           Acts of domestic violence often are intended to dissuade a victim from 
       resorting to outside help, and include conduct designed to prevent testimony to 
       police officers or cooperation in criminal prosecutions. Where such an abusive 
       relationship culminates in murder, the evidence may support a finding that the 
       crime expressed the intent to isolate the victim and to stop her from reporting 
       abuse to the authorities or cooperating with a criminal prosecution -- rendering her 
       prior statements admissible under the forfeiture doctrine.  Earlier abuse, or threats 
       of abuse, intended to dissuade the victim from resorting to outside help would be 
       highly relevant to this inquiry, as would evidence of ongoing criminal proceedings 
       at which the victim would have been expected to testify.

Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 377, 128 S. Ct. 2678, 171 L. Ed. 2d 488 (2008).  Dobbs's 

argument fails.

B.     Evidence of Wrongdoing

       Dobbs argues that the State did not prove that his actions were designed to prevent C.R. 

from testifying.  We disagree.

       Here, the evidence showed that Dobbs engaged in repeated and persistent acts of violence 

                                               8 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

against C.R. and that his violence escalated as time progressed.  First there were verbal threats 

and arguing; then tire slashing; then a drive-by shooting; and, finally, he entered her apartment 

without permission while wielding a gun.  Dobbs's text messages, telephone calls, and note

showed that he was not afraid of the police, that he told C.R. she would die if she continued to 

cooperate with them, and that his friends would "reap a world of trouble and pain" on her.  1 RP 

at 120.  Even after his arrest, he pleaded with her not to press charges, and then threatened her, 

saying, "[Y]ou'll regret it."  1 RP at 123.  This is substantial evidence that Dobbs intentionally

engaged in misconduct to keep C.R. from testifying.  The trial court did not err in finding that the 

doctrine of forfeiture by misconduct applied.

C.     Reflexive Forfeiture

       Dobbs argues that applying the forfeiture doctrine in cases such as this results in "reflexive 

forfeiture." Br. of Appellant at 15.  "Reflexive forfeiture" offends the presumption of innocence 

because the trial court must assume the defendant is guilty prior to trial.  Mason, 160 Wn.2d  at 

940 (Sanders, J., dissenting).  He argues that our Supreme Court adopted reflexive forfeiture in 

Mason because that was a murder case and the act of murder will always be the reason the victim 

is unavailable to testify. Extending the forfeiture doctrine to domestic violence cases, he argues, 

"could cause a situation in which anyone charged with an act of domestic violence forfeits his or 

her right to confrontation by virtue of the nature of the act alone." Br. of Appellant at 17 (citing 

Tom Lininger, Yes, Virginia, There is a Confrontation Clause, 71 Brooklyn L. Rev. 401, 407 

(2005) ("the forfeiture exception would swallow the rule of confrontation.")).

       Dobbs's concerns about reflexive forfeiture are not present in this case.  Here, we have 

                                               9 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

evidence that Dobbs's violent behavior became more aggressive because of C.R.'s cooperation 

with the police; this includes evidence of his behavior after his incarceration.  There is sufficient 

evidence to show that Dobbs caused C.R.'s unavailability. The trial court did not err in applying 

the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing.

                                          II.  Hearsay

       Dobbs argues that even if the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing applied, the trial court 

erred in ruling that it need not find hearsay exceptions that applied to C.R.'s statements before 

admitting them at trial.  He relies on ER 804(a)(6), which provides, "A declarant is not 

unavailable as a witness if the . . . absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the 

proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying."  

He argues that once a witness is deemed unavailable under this rule, the exceptions under ER 803 

apply to determine admissibility.

       He notes that the trial court and the State agreed that certain evidence would have been 

inadmissible but for the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing.  This evidence consisted of two 

handwritten statements C.R. made that would have been arguably admissible only if they 

contradicted her in-court testimony, and numerous statements C.R. gave that did not qualify 

under the hearsay exceptions for present sense impressions and excited utterances.  See State v. 

Nelson, 74 Wn. App. 380, 387, 874 P.2d 170 (1994) (discussing reliability factors for assessing 

prior inconsistent statements).

       In Mason, our supreme court adopted the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, 

explaining:

                                               10 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

       Forfeiture is grounded in equity -- the notion that people cannot complain of the 
       natural and generally intended consequences of their actions. Specific intent to 
       prevent testimony is unnecessary. Knowledge that the foreseeable consequences of 
       one's actions include a witness' unavailability at trial is adequate to conclude a 
       forfeiture of confrontation rights. The finding of a specific intent to keep a witness 
       from testifying argued by Mason is more than is warranted by the "equitable"
       grounds upon which the rule is based.

160 Wn.2d at 926.  

       In Fallentine, Clark, a co-participant in an arson, refused to testify against Fallentine out 

of fear of physical violence against himself.  149 Wn. App. at 622-23.  The trial court applied the 

doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing and admitted Clark's recorded statements to the arson 

investigator.  149 Wn. App. at 623.  In a footnote, the appellate court noted: 

       Fallentine concedes that a finding of forfeiture by wrongdoing prohibits a challenge 
       to the admissibility of statements on hearsay as well as confrontation grounds.  See 
       Giles, 128 S. Ct. at 2686. For the first time in his reply brief, Fallentine contends 
       Giles leaves open the question of whether unreliable testimony, excludable on due 
       process grounds, may be introduced by virtue of an accused person's  act of 
       wrongdoing. We decline to address this argument. See State v. Johnson, 119 
       Wn.2d 167, 170, 829 P.2d 1082 (1992).

149 Wn. App. at 623-24 n.34.

       In Giles, the Supreme Court suggested that indeed the defendant has waived any hearsay 

objections when the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing applies:

       No case or treatise that we have found, however, suggested that a defendant who 
       committed wrongdoing forfeited his confrontation rights but not his hearsay rights. 
       And the distinction would have been a surprising one, because courts prior to the 
       founding excluded hearsay evidence in large part because it was unconfronted. 
       See, e. g., 2 [William] Hawkins[, A Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown] 606 (6th 
       ed. 1787); 2 M[atthew] Bacon, A New Abridgment of the Law 313 (1736).  As 
       the plurality said in Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 86, 91 S. Ct. 210, 27 L. Ed. 2d 
       213 (1970), "[i]t seems apparent that the Sixth Amendment's  Confrontation 
       Clause and the evidentiary hearsay rule stem from the same roots."

                                               11 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

Giles, 554 U.S. at 365. This is consistent with former Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6)

(2010), which provides that a defendant's forfeiture by wrongdoing acts as an exception to the 

hearsay rule.

              (b) Hearsay exceptions.    The following are not excluded by the hearsay 
       rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
              (6) Forfeiture by wrongdoing.  A statement offered against a party that 
       has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure 
       the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.

Former Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6).

       "Because both the hearsay rule and the confrontation clause are designed to protect 

against the dangers of using out-of-court declarations as proof, a defendant's actions that make it 

necessary for the government to resort to such proof should be construed as a forfeiture of the 

protections afforded under both." United States v. White, 116 F.3d 903, 912 (D.C. Cir. 1997) 

(noting more common trend is loss of confrontation rights and hearsay objections).  But see 

Vasquez v. People, 173 P.3d 1099 (Colo. 2007) (adopting the more "prudent" approach and 

requiring proof of reliability separately because hearsay is inherently unreliable). We hold the trial 

court did not err in admitting the evidence.

       Dobbs next argues that under ER 804(a)(6), a "declarant is deemed not unavailable when 

his or her failure to testify was procured by the wrongdoing of the party objecting to the

admission of the statement." Br. of Appellant at 22.  But he misconstrues ER 804(a)(6), which 

actually states that a declarant is deemed not unavailable if the witness's failure to testify "is due 

to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement." (Emphasis added.).  ER 

804(a)(6) simply does not apply here.

                                               12 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

       Finally, Dobbs argues that the State is unjustly enriched under its theory that any hearsay 

objections are waived.  He argues that this approach allows the State to introduce otherwise 

inadmissible evidence without having to make a showing of reliability.  For example, C.R. gave 

two written statements that would have been admissible only had she testified differently than the 

affidavits.5  But we agree with the State's position that Dobbs's conduct made its best evidence, 

namely, C.R.'s testimony, unavailable and instead it had to rely on hearsay and other less direct 

evidence to prove the charges.

       Although there may be some statements so lacking in reliability that their admission would 

raise due process concerns, see United States v. Aguiar, 975 F.2d 45, 47 (2d Cir. 1992) (although 

finding no due process violation in case at hand, recognizing admission of facially unreliable 

hearsay may raise due process concerns in some cases), here Dobbs make no such claim.  We 

affirm the trial court's ruling that Dobbs waived any hearsay objections.

       A majorityofthe panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will 

be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public record 

in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

                             III.  Statement of Additional Grounds

       In a statement of additional grounds for review, Dobbs argues that he never had a 

weapon, did not shoot at C.R.'s apartment, and the weapon the police found did not contain his 

5 This type of victim statement is frequently referred to as a "Smith affidavit" based on State v. 
Smith, 97 Wn.2d 856, 861-63, 651 P.2d 207 (1982) (holding ER 801 801(d)(1)(i) permits 
admission of a trial witness's prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence when that 
statement was made as a written complaint (under oath subject to penalty of perjury) to 
investigating police officers subject to reliability analysis).

                                               13 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) or fingerprints.  Additionally, Dobbs argues that he did nothing 

more than break up with his ex-girl friend and she got mad and lied to the police.

       These challenges are to the sufficiency of the evidence.  When facing a challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence, we ask whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable 

to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980).  

Credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and are not subject to review.  State v. 

Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990).  We defer to the trier of fact's resolution of 

conflicting testimony, evaluation of witness credibility, and decisions regarding the persuasiveness 

of the evidence.  State v. Walton, 64 Wn. App. 410, 415-16, 824 P.2d 533 (1992).

       Here, there was ample evidence that Dobbs possessed a firearm, including Applebury's 

eyewitness testimony that a man he believed to be Dobbs fired shots at the apartment from the 

alley and his seeing Dobbs later that day in C.R.'s apartment with a gun.  Further, the trial court 

admitted C.R.'s statements that Dobbs had come into her apartment with a gun.  Also, Dobbs 

admitted having a toy gun but could not specifically describe the toy gun to Sergeant Hallowell.  

       As to Dobbs's second claim that C.R. lied to the police, this relies on matters outside the 

record and thus we will not consider it on direct appeal.  See State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 

338, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).

                                IV.  Personal Restraint Petition

       In his personal restrain petition consolidated to this appeal, Dobbs argues that we should 

dismiss his unlawful possession of a firearm conviction because it resulted from an illegal seizure.  

                                               14 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

He does not explain the basis of his claim, provides incomplete citations, and claims that there was 

no proof of a material element of the crime.

       To prove first degree unlawful possession of a firearm, the State had to show that Dobbs 

had a prior serious offense and that he knowingly possessed a firearm during the time charged 

(November 5, 2009 to November 10, 2009).  RCW 9.41.040(1).  In this regard, the State 

presented evidence that Dobbs had a prior serious felony from Missouri, it presented evidence 

that Dobbs was in C.R.'s apartment with a gun, it presented evidence that he fired a gun at C.R.'s 

residence, and it presented evidence that he fled the scene through a neighbor's yard and the 

police recovered a gun from the owner of that property.  This is ample evidence to support the 

conviction.  Petitioner's claim has no merit.

       We affirm the convictions and deny Dobbs's personal restraint petition.

                                                    _________________________________
                                                                 Worswick, A.C. J.
I concur:

_________________________________
Quinn-Brintnall, J.

                                               15 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

       Van Deren, J. (dissenting)  --  I respectfully dissent.  I agree with the United States 

Supreme Court that: 

       Domestic violence is an intolerable offense that legislatures may choose to combat 
       through many means -- from increasing criminal penalties to adding resources for 
       investigation and prosecution to funding awareness and prevention campaigns.  
       But for that serious crime, as for others, abridging the constitutional rights of 
       criminal defendant is not in the State's arsenal.

Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376, 128 S. Ct. 2678, 171 L. Ed. 2d 488 (2008).

       Because the abridgment of defendant's right of confrontation in domestic violence cases 

should not be an option, I would hold that the State is not allowed to invoke the doctrine of 

forfeiture by wrongdoing in domestic violence cases without clear, cogent, and convincing 

evidence that the alleged victim's failure to appear in response to the State's witness subpoena 

was due to the defendant's actions that do not form the basis of the criminal charges against the 

defendant.  

       Evidence must be clear, cogent, and convincing that the defendant accomplished the 

absence of the witness.  State v. Mason,160 Wn.2d 910, 927, 162 P.3d 396 (2007).6 Here, the 

6 Giles overruled Mason to the extent Mason holds that specific intent to prevent testimony need 
not be shown to invoke the forfeiture doctrine.  State v. Fallentine, 149 Wn. App. 614, 620, 215 
P.3d 945 (2009).  I would agree that application of the forfeiture doctrine does not offend the 
Sixth Amendment right of confrontation in murder cases where the witness is dead and there is 
"overwhelming and untainted" evidence that the defendant intended to and did procure the 
absence of the victim by killing him.  Mason, 160 Wn.2d at 927 (quoting State v. Davis, 154 
Wn.2d 291, 305, 111 P.3d 844 (2005)).  In those cases, the State may offer evidence of the 
murder victim's fear of the defendant or evidence of a murder defendant's actions toward the 
murder victim that suggests the defendant's motive or means of accomplishing the victim's silence 
or lack of cooperation with a criminal prosecution for the defendant's earlier possibly criminal 
conduct toward the murder victim.  See Giles v. California, 554 U.S. at 377; Mason, 160 Wn.2d 
at 916-17.  In Mason, everything the murder victim said to the police was said to four civilian 
witnesses whose testimony Mason did not challenge, making any confrontation clause error 
harmless.  160 Wn.2d at 927.  That is not the case here.

                                               16 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

majorityrelies in part on acts that were the basis of the charges against Dobbs to find that his 

conduct caused the alleged victim to not appear for trial.  Majority at 8-9.  In doing so, the 

majority, as well as the trial court, had to assume that he was guilty of the charges, without 

benefit of a trial and in the absence of overwhelming and untainted evidence of those charges.  I 

am not persuaded that admission of hearsay statements from the alleged victim regarding the 

charges, without more, constitutes clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the witness did not 

appear at trial due to the defendant's actions.

       The trial court's factual findings do not indicate that Timothy Dobbs had the specific 

intent to prevent the complaining witness from testifying against him.  Nor could the trial court 

have found on the record before it that Dobbs' intended to, and did, prevent the complaining 

witness from testifying against him by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence sufficient to waive 

his United States Constitution Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.  

       Although the record is replete with allegations about Dobbs' conduct toward the alleged 

victim, the record lacks even a scintilla of evidence about why the witness actually chose to not 

attend trial.  The night before, she responded to Longview Police Officer Matthew Headley's 

reminder about appearing in trial without any suggestion that she would not appear.  The record 

shows only speculation about her reasons for not appearing in court, based on the pending 

charges and on a statement Dobbs allegedly made to her after his arrest, and after he made a 

telephone call from the jail.  Majority at 9.  This evidence, under any measure, is not clear, cogent, 

and convincing that Dobbs procured the witness's absence.

       Because I believe that Dobbs' constitutional right to confront the witness against him has 

                                               17 

40534-2-II
Consolidated with 40636-5-II

been violated by an overly expansive application of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, I 

respectfully dissent.

                                                    ______________________________
                                                    Van Deren, J.

                                               18