State Of Washington, Respondent V Christopher Edward Eger, Appellant (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II 201511N - 14 AM 8: 314 STAT; Oi j IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHING19 DIVISION II No. 45248 -1 - II STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION CHRISTOPHER EDWARD EGER, Appellant. LEE, J. — A jury found Christopher Eger guilty of possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Eger appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the images found on his hard drive when he offered to stipulate that they depicted a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Because the State was not required to accept Eger' s stipulation and the probative value of the admitted images was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the images. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTS In 2010, while Eger was travelling out of the state for business, Eger' s wife called the police to report that she found " child pornography" on their home computer. 3 Verbatim Report of Proceedings ( VRP) at 281. Police officers responded to Eger' s home, and after finding explicit images on the computer, police officers obtained warrants and seized the computer. Following an SHINGTOU No. 45248 -1 - II investigation, the State charged Eger with possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. 1 In a pretrial hearing, the trial court ruled that it would allow the State to present 30 of the approximately 900 images found on Eger' s computer. Eger moved to exclude the images that allegedly depict children" engaged in sexually explicit conduct, arguing that the evidence would be highly prejudicial. Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 147. In lieu of admitting the images, Eger offered to stipulate that the images meet the statutory criteria. The State argued that it was not required to stipulate and that it had a right to present the crime that Eger allegedly committed. The trial court ruled that the State has a " right to put on the evidence to support the elements of the crime that they' re alleging took place." At trial, the State Eger guilty 2 VRP at 234. proffered of possession of 12 images. The trial depictions court admitted of minors engaged 10 images. in sexually A jury found explicit conduct. Eger appeals. ANALYSIS A. STIPULATION Eger claims that the trial court erred by admitting explicit images of minors, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting unfairly prejudicial images instead of accepting his proposed stipulation regarding the images. We disagree. Eger argues that his offered stipulation would have fulfilled the State' s duty to prove the element without prejudicing the State' s case, and that the State' s refusal to accept his stipulation evidences 1 the State' RCW 9. 68A. 070. s purpose " was to unfairly turn.the jury against Eger." Br. of Appellant at 9. No. 45248 -1 - II Washington courts have long established that " the State is not automatically precluded from presenting its requires that both evidence on an State parties agree. denied, 491 U.S. 910 ( 1989). issue merely because the defendant v. offers a stipulation," which Rice, 110 Wn.2d 577, 598 -99, 757 P. 2d 889 ( 1988), cert. Importantly, subject to ER 403 and other rules of evidence, the State is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice, or, more exactly, that a criminal defendant may not stipulate or admit his way out of the full evidentiary force of the case as the State] chooses to present 136 L. Ed. 2d 574 ( 1997) for the rule is to 2; permit a it." Old Chief v. United States, 519 U. S. 172, 186 -87, 117 S. Ct. 644, State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 811, 975 P. 2d 967 ( 1999). The " reason party ` to present to the jury a picture of the events relied upon. To substitute for such a picture a naked admission might have the effect to rob the evidence of much of its fair and legitimate F.2d 86, 88 ( 5th Cir.), weight. ' cert Old Chief 519 U.S. at 187 ( quoting Parr v. United States, 255 denied, 358 U.S. 824 ( 1958)). 3 2 The Old Chiefcourt noted the following regarding stipulations: A syllogism is not a story, and a naked proposition in a courtroom may be no match for the robust evidence that would be used to prove it. People who hear a story interrupted by gaps of abstraction may be puzzled at the missing chapters, and jurors asked to rest a momentous decision on the story's truth can feel put upon at being asked to take responsibility knowing that more could be said than they have heard. A convincing tale can be told with economy, but when economy becomes a break in the natural sequence of narrative evidence, an assurance that the missing link is really there is never more than second best. 519 U. S. 172 at 189. 3 In Old Chief the court ultimately excluded the disputed evidence; however, the court excluded on propensity grounds, noting that the evidence at issue was " dependent on some judgment rendered wholly independently of the concrete events of later criminal behavior charged against him." 519 U.S. at 190. 3 No. 45248 -1 - II Here, the State was not required to stipulate to the nature of the images. Eger argues that his stipulation offered the State an alternative method of proving the nature of the images. And while it is true that his stipulation would have satisfied the State' s burden on that element, Eger has not offered authority to support his claim that the State was required to stipulate that the images depicted minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Therefore, in the absence of a stipulation agreed to by the parties, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the images. B. EVIDENCE RULE ( ER) 403 Eger argues that the admitted images were highly prejudicial, and therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the " inflammatory images." Br. of Appellant at 15. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the images. The trial court has broad discretion to admit evidence, and we review its decisions for an abuse of discretion. State v. Lord, 161 Wn.2d 276, 294, 165 P. 3d 1251 ( 2007). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. Id. at 283 -84. An erroneous ruling with respect to such questions requires reversal only if there is a reasonable possibility that the testimony would have changed the outcome of trial. "4 State v. Aguirre, 168 Wn.2d 350, 361, 229 P. 3d 669 ( 2010). In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the images, we first review the relevancy of the images under ER 401., and then potential unfair prejudice under ER 4 The record does not reflect that the trial court balanced the probative and prejudicial value of the images under ER 403. But Eger has cited no authority for the proposition that a trial court is required to do an ER 403 balancing on the record under these circumstances. State v. Gould, 58 Wn. App. 175, 184, 791 P. 2d 569 ( 1990). 4 No. 45248 -1 - II 403. See State Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 651, 904 P. 2d 245 ( 1995); see also Finch, 137 Wn.2d at v. 811. Evidence is relevant any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of if it has " consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be the without the at 652. Relevant evidence is generally ER 402. The decision to admit evidence " where the defendant offers to stipulate is admissible. within ER 401; Pirtle, 127 Wn. 2d evidence." discretion of the trial Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d at 653. court." To convict Eger of possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, the State was required to beyond prove a reasonable doubt that Eger " knowingly possessed visual or printed matter depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct" and that Eger knew the at 600. The person person jury in the knowledge was depicted at 226 ( Jury Instruction 16); see Rice, 110 Wn.2d instructed that "[ i] f a person has information that would lead a reasonable same situation of CP was a minor. to CP that fact." believe that at 222 ( a Jury fact exists," the jury may find that Eger " acted with Instruction 12). The State offered the images to demonstrate that the images it charged Eger with possessing depicted a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Thus, the images, which showed minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, tended to prove an element of the crime charged. The evidence was relevant. See Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d at 652; see also Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 811. However, outweighed relevant by the danger evidence " may be excluded if its probative value is substantially of unfair prejudice." ER 403; Rice, 110 Wn.2d at 600. Eger argues that the images were unpleasant and, therefore, prejudicial, and that the trial court should have required the State to accept his stipulation to the content of the 5 images. Eger argues that "[ g] raphic evidence No. 45248 -1 - II of children Appellant depicted at 10. of But " engaging in sexually evidence is disgust in explicit conduct can cause not prejudicial merely because it is a gruesome," jury." Br. of and "[ e] ven repulsive photographs are admissible if their probative value outweighs their prejudicial effect." Rice, 110 Wn.2d at 601; State v. Sargent, 40 Wn. App. 340, 347, 698 P. 2d 598 ( 1985). Here, the evidence was highly probative as to whether the images Eger allegedly possessed depicted a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Eger has not demonstrated how the probative value of the images, which tended to prove an element of the crime charged, was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. See Rice, 110 Wn.2d at 600. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the images. We affirm. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered. We concur:
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
