State v. Mohamed
Washington Court of Appeals
358 P.3d 442 (2015)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Sayiden Mohamed (defendant) was charged with assault. At trial, Mohamed called Dr. Robert Julien as his only witness to testify that Mohamed had been in a state of alcohol-induced blackout that prevented Mohamed from forming the required intent for assault. Julien’s opinion was based in part on a conversation with Mohamed about the night in question. Julien testified that during that conversation, Mohamed had told Julien how many drinks he had consumed on the night in question. On cross-examination, the prosecution (plaintiff) sought to impeach Mohamed’s out-of-court statement to Julien based on Mohamed’s prior convictions, pursuant to Washington Evidence Rule 806. The trial court permitted this impeachment, and the jury convicted Mohamed. The trial court granted Mohamed’s motion for new trial on the ground that the statements to Julien were offered not for the truth of the matter asserted but for forming the basis of Julien’s expert opinion. Accordingly, the statements could not be used to impeach Mohamed with the prior convictions. The prosecution appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Trickey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
