ER 404(b)

Washington Supreme Court

 Severance – Courts apply a two-step test in determining whether to grant a motion to sever: 1) consider the four factors for determining whether the potential prejudice from joining the charges for a single trial requires severance, and if the answer is no, then 2) weigh the prejudice of a joint trial against the benefits.  Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion to sever multiple rape charges involving the same defendant but different victims.  Separate trials would have potentially had all the same witnesses.  While the details of each victim’s rape would not have been admissible in separate trials, the jury could be expected to compartmentalize the evidence on the different counts, thus severance was not required.  The benefits of joinder are clear.  The burden of testifying contributes to low reporting of rapes.  Requiring each victim to re-testify in separate trials, and to re-live the trauma each time, would do damage to the administration of justice.  State v. Krause, No. 103835-6 (Mar. 26, 2026)

 ER 404(b) – Evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts may be admissible under ER 404(b) to show common scheme or plan if the prior bad acts were markedly similar to the charged crimes.  But the victims in the prior bad acts do not need to be markedly similar to each other for the prior bad acts to be admissible to show common scheme or plan.  Jurors are presumed to follow limiting instructions.  State v. Stearns, No. 103908-5 (Mar. 26, 2026)

 Division II

 Community Custody Conditions – A community custody condition requiring the defendant to consent to home visits and searches is unconstitutionally broad unless it first requires the DOC to have reasonable cause to believe the search will reveal evidence of a violation.  State v. Haas, No. 60309-8-II (Mar. 24, 2026)

 Premises liability – A plaintiff, in a premises liability case against a county, must show that the county possessed the premises to establish that the county owed a duty to the plaintiff.  A possessor of land occupies or controls it.  Here, the County did not occupy or control an airplane hangar that it leased to a skydiving company that the plaintiff used when she was injured.  Thus, the county owed no duty regarding the dangerous activities at the premises.  Beenan v. Lewis County, No. 59591-5-II (Mar. 24, 2026, unpublished)