Div II- nicknames admitted were hearsay and violated the confrontation clause.
State v. McDaniel and Marlow (consolidated)
McDaniel appeals convictions of first degree attempted murder, first degree robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm. His accomplice, Marlow, appeals his convictions of first degree robbery and first degree unlawful possession of a firearm. They argue that the the court erred in admitting hearsay evidence of their nicknames, violating their sixth amendment right to confrontation, the court erred by refusing to sever the unlawful possession of firearms, and that their counsel was ineffective.
McDaniel: The court analyzed the hearsay testimony of the nicknames admitted under Crawford, asking whether the evidence was testimonial. Here, the court found that the out of court statements made under police questioning are testimonial. (The dissent argued that the nicknames were admissible under ER 804 (b)(4)). The court also found that the court abused its discretion when they admitted evidence of his resisting arrest and flight. The court held that these errors were not harmless and remanded for a new trial.
The appeals court affirmed Marlow’s convictions.
The court held that the defendants failed to renew their severance motions during trial and held the issue was waived.
The court held that McDaniel’s and Marlow’s argument regarding ineffective assistance of counsel fail.