Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/723421.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
Full Text
1,773 charsparty has raised a material issue, the opposing party is permitted to explain,
clarify, or contradict the evidence." State v. Berg, 147 Wn. App. 923, 939, 198
P.3d 529 (2008), abrogated on other grounds. State v. Mutch. 171 Wn.2d 646,
254 P.3d 803 (2011). Our Supreme Court explained the rule's rationale thusly:
It would be a curious rule of evidence which allowed one party to
bring up a subject, drop it at a point where it might appear
advantageous to him, and then bar the other party from all further
inquiries about it. Rules of evidence are designed to aid in
establishing the truth. To close the door after receiving only a part
of the evidence not only leaves the matter suspended in air at a
point markedly advantageous to the party who opened the door, but
might well limit the proof to half-truths.
State v. Gefeller, 76 Wn.2d 449, 455, 458 P.2d 17 (1969).
A review of the proceedings leading up to the pertinent trial court ruling is
illuminating.
Judge Heller initially ruled that the age discrimination verdict was
inadmissible. Corbis did not contest or otherwise object to the trial court's ruling,
conceding thatthe verdict was irrelevant to the issue ofwhether Corbis retaliated
against Lodis for having allegedly admonished Shenk for making age-based
comments. As the trial progressed, Lodis repeatedly introduced testimony
concerning alleged age discrimination about which he did not allegedly admonish
Shenk, in violation of the trial court's ruling. Indeed, even while upholding his
17
No. 72342-1-1/18
ruling that the age discrimination verdict was inadmissible, throughout the
proceedings, Judge Heller repeatedly cautioned Lodis that he was "taking a bit of