Washington Court Finds Defendant’s Rap Lyrics Are Inadmissible Unless There’s a Strong Nexus Between the Lyrics and the Crimes Charged

A big issue that has emerged in recent years is the question of whether the prosecution can introduce rap lyrics authored by the defendant in a criminal case. The latest court to weigh in on the issue is the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, in its recent opinion in Matter of Quintero, 2024 WL 190442 (Wash. App. 2024).

In Quintero, the defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree premeditated murder and one count of unlawful possession of firearm. Over his objection, the following redacted rap lyrics that he had written were introduced into evidence:

CASES GOING COLD NO MATTER HOW MUCH DEDICATION

 

THIS AINT BRAGGIN

 

SHOUT OUT TO THE HOMIES DOING TIME IN [CLALLUM] BAY

 

AND ONE EIGHT SEVEN GREEN LIGHT TO ALL THEM KNOWN

 

RATAS

 

THEY HIT EM WITH THE 500,000 ON THE BAIL

 

SO AINT NO OUT OF JAIL YET THE HOMIES KEEP IT QUIET

 

MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE IS WHAT THE PAPERS SAID…

 

AINT NO PEACE TREATY

 

WHAT MUST IT TAKE FOR A RAT TO STOP TALKIN

 

TAKE CARE OF IT YOURSELF AND YOU BETTER GETS TO

 

WALKIN

 

YOU GET THE COLD METAL AND YOU POINT IT AT THEIR DOME

 

LET THEM KNOW THEY DEAD AND PUT SOME LEAD UP IN THE

 

HEAD

 

THE MUZZLE KEEPS FLASHIN IT KEEPS THE BODY SHAKING

 

BALASO FOR BALASO ALL THE BULLET IT BE TAKIN

On appeal, the court noted that this was an issue of first impression for it and cited cases from other jurisdiction for the proposition that “unless there is a strong nexus between the lyrics and the crimes charged, the probative effect of admitting violent lyrics or writings into evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”

Applying this analysis to the case at hand, the court concluded that

Because neither rap lyric has a strong factual nexus to the Walnut Street murders, their prejudicial effect substantially outweighed their probative value. The trial court did not engage in a weighing process similar to the one outlined in Skinner. The admitted lyrics posed a significant risk that the jury would use them to conclude Mr. Quintero was a violent person who had a violent character and criminal propensity. As such, Mr. Quintero’s jury may have arrived at its decision to convict him by relying on the impermissible character evidence found in the lyrics. We conclude that the lyrics should have been excluded under ER 403.

-CM