## Facts

- Rachael Conlin was severely beaten in a hotel room.
- At the hospital, Conlin identified Nova Smith as the assailant.
- Conlin later went to a police station and prepared a detailed written statement identifying Smith, swearing to it before a notary and under penalty of perjury.
- At trial, Conlin recanted and testified that another man (Gomez) was responsible and that Smith helped her.
- The prosecution offered Conlin’s prior sworn statement both to impeach her trial testimony and as substantive evidence under Washington Rule of Evidence (ER) 801(d)(1)(i).
- Smith was convicted of second-degree assault after the trial court admitted the prior sworn statement as substantive evidence.
- The trial judge later granted Smith a new trial, reasoning the affidavit was not made in an “other proceeding” for purposes of ER 801(d)(1)(i).
- The State sought review, and the matter reached the Washington Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a prior inconsistent statement made under oath before a notary qualifies as having been made in an “other proceeding” under ER 801(d)(1)(i), permitting admission for its truth when the declarant testifies inconsistently at trial.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the order granting a new trial.
- The court held Conlin’s notarized, sworn prior inconsistent statement was admissible as substantive evidence under ER 801(d)(1)(i).
- The court reinstated Smith’s conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Under ER 801(d)(1)(i), a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay and may be admitted substantively if the witness testifies at trial and the prior statement was made under oath subject to penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or “other proceeding.”
- The “other proceeding” requirement is satisfied when the circumstances of the statement provide substantial assurance of reliability, including a formal oath, an express perjury warning, and a deliberate, voluntary written statement.
- A notarized affidavit given under penalty of perjury may qualify as an “other proceeding,” even if not made in a traditional courtroom or formal adjudicative setting.

## Conclusion

The court held that a witness’s sworn, notarized affidavit that is inconsistent with trial testimony can be admitted as substantive evidence under ER 801(d)(1)(i) because the oath and perjury sanctions supply the reliability contemplated by the “other proceeding” requirement.


State v. Smith, 651 P.2d 207 (Wash. 1982)