FILED JANUARY 7, 2020 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 35752-0-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) JOSE MANUEL QUINTERO, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. ) SIDDOWAY, J. — Federal law provides for a U visa, which can be obtained by someone illegally in the United States who (among other requirements) has been helpful to a law enforcement agency in the investigation or prosecution of a qualifying crime. Several appellate courts from around the country have held that where a State’s witness in a criminal case has applied for a U visa and been promised State support for the application if their testimony proves helpful, the defendant must be allowed to question the witness about that possible motivation for the witness’s testimony. At Jose Quintero’s trial, two witnesses against him were promised by the State that if they provided the type of help required for the U visa, it would sign off on a required certification of their assistance. The trial court ruled that the defense could not question No. 35752-0-III State v. Quintero either witness about the State’s promise because it would necessarily reveal their undocumented status, which would be unduly prejudicial, In this case, neither witness against Mr. Quintero had applied for a U visa by the time of trial and the defense was able to demonstrate only a possibility that the witnesses would apply, qualify, and realize any benefit from the State’s promise. Because the evidence that Mr. Quintero sought to develop was not highly probative, we find no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to exclude it as unduly prejudicial. We affirm the convictions but remand with directions to address a challenged DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) collection fee. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2016, Jose Quintero, a member of the 18th Street Gang in Walla Walla, was charged with the first degree murder of Janette Rojas Balderas and her boyfriend, Jon Cody Cano, as well as first degree unlawful possession of a firearm. The State would present evidence at trial that Ms. Rojas had been an informant for the Walla Walla police, participating in 15 controlled drug buys until, in 2015, she told police that the 18th Street Gang had “green-lighted” her—meaning she had been identified as okay to kill. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 963. One of Ms. Rojas’s controlled drug buys was from Charley Lozano, who was charged and later pleaded guilty to delivery of methamphetamine. At the time of the Rojas and Cano murders, Mr. Lozano was the only individual from whom Ms. Rojas had 2 No. 35752-0-III State v. Quintero both done a controlled buy and whose case had proceeded to the point where her identity would have been revealed to his defense lawyer. Mr. Lozano was scheduled to be sentenced on his drug conviction on Monday, August 10, 2015. A ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals