## Facts

- C.R. ended her relationship with Timothy John Dobbs in November 2009.
- Dobbs engaged in escalating stalking, harassment, and threats against C.R., including statements that she would “get it” for calling police and would “regret it” if she pressed charges.
- A drive-by shooting occurred at C.R.’s home; Dobbs left a voicemail admitting he fired the shots.
- C.R. told police she was terrified and feared she would “wind up dead.”
- Dobbs was arrested and charged with stalking, harassment, and drive-by shooting; the State later added intimidating a witness, unlawful possession of a firearm, and obstructing a law-enforcement officer.
- While jailed awaiting trial, Dobbs continued contacting C.R. and made an additional threatening call tied to her decision to proceed with charges.
- The State subpoenaed C.R. for trial, but she did not appear and could not be located despite efforts by prosecutors and law enforcement.
- The trial court admitted C.R.’s out-of-court statements after finding, by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, that Dobbs caused her absence through intimidation.

## Issues

1. Whether the State proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that Dobbs intentionally procured C.R.’s absence to prevent her testimony, thereby forfeiting Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
2. Whether that forfeiture also barred Dobbs’s hearsay objections to C.R.’s out-of-court statements.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld Dobbs’s convictions.
- The court held the State proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that Dobbs’s wrongdoing caused C.R.’s unavailability and was intended to prevent her from testifying.
- Because Dobbs forfeited his confrontation rights by wrongdoing, the trial court did not violate the Confrontation Clause by admitting C.R.’s out-of-court statements.
- The forfeiture finding also defeated Dobbs’s hearsay objections to those statements.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant forfeits Sixth Amendment confrontation rights if clear, cogent, and convincing evidence shows the defendant’s wrongdoing made the witness unavailable and was committed with the intent to prevent testimony.
- Forfeiture by wrongdoing requires proof of both causation (wrongdoing caused the absence) and specific intent (purpose to prevent the witness from testifying).
- When forfeiture is established, the defendant may not exclude the absent witness’s statements on Confrontation Clause grounds and may also forfeit related hearsay objections.
- A defendant may not benefit from witness intimidation that induces nonappearance at trial.

## Conclusion

The court held that Dobbs’s sustained threats and intimidation—explicitly linked to C.R.’s cooperation with prosecution—were proven to have caused her absence and to have been intended to prevent her testimony, resulting in forfeiture of confrontation rights and related hearsay objections and supporting admission of her out-of-court statements.


State v. Dobbs, 320 P.3d 705 (Wash. 2014)