FILED
JULY 11, 2017
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 34220-4-111
Respondent, )
)
V. )
)
ROGER WILLIAM FLOOK, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
FEARING, C.J. -Roger Flook appeals on numerous grounds his convictions for
child rape and child molestation. We agree with his contention that a law enforcement
officer improperly vouched, during the officer's testimony, to the credibility of the victim
and the lack of veracity of Flook. We remand for a new trial.
FACTS
On July 24, 2010, Roger William Flook married Martha Flook. Martha has two
children from a prior marriage, A.S. and J.S. J.S. suffers from a seizure disorder. When
startled, J.S.'s muscles grow rigid, his body curls, and he places his arms behind his head.
In 2014, Martha and Roger Flook resided in Endicott. On June 6, 2014, Martha
and Roger, accompanied by A.S. and J.S., attended a marriage seminar in Clarkston. The
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
parents failed to properly plan for the trip. A.S. and J.S. lacked pajamas and bathing
suits, and J.S. lacked his seizure medication.
During the Clarkston marriage seminar, all four members of the family stayed in
one room with one king-size bed at a motel. They laid in bed in the following order:
Roger, A.S., J.S., Martha.
A consuming cold afflicted Martha Flook during the night of June 6. She
struggled to sleep and her coughing, combined with J.S.' lack of medication, caused J.S.
to suffer seizures. At an unidentified time, Martha arose from bed, sat in a chair near
Roger, and remained in the chair for the remainder of the night. J.S. seized throughout
the night.
A.S. began the night laying on her back. At some unidentified moment, A.S. felt
something under her pants. The pressure under her clothes released, but, three to five
seconds later, returned. She sensed a hand further down her pants. The hand retreated
again. A.S. later identified the hand as Roger Flook's hand. Roger's hand slid inside her
underwear a third time. A.S. felt the hand "touch [her] area." Report of Proceedings
(RP) at 115. After the hand retreated again, A.S. rolled onto her side and positioned her
arm between her legs. Roger grabbed her arm and whispered "come on." RP at 116.
A.S. softly cried. When Roger asked her what was wrong, A.S. did not respond.
In August 2015, A.S. attended summer camp in Moscow, Idaho. On her last day
at camp, A.S. disclosed, to C.S., a nine-year-old girl A.S. met at camp, the touching by
2
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
Roger Flook in her private area. C.S. reported A.S.'s disclosure to C.S.'s mother. Aaron
Sheridan, the father of both A.S. and J.S., resides in Pullman. After searching for Aaron
Sheridan's location, C.S.'s mother contacted Sheridan and informed him of A.S.'s
disclosure. Thereafter Sheridan informed Martha Flook of A.S.'s allegations.
Whitman County Sheriff Brett Myers conducted most of the investigation into
A.S.'s allegations against Roger Flook. Myers interviewed both A.S. and Flook. When
Myers asked Flook ifhe touched A.S.'s private parts, Flook denied any such touching.
Flook explained that J.S. suffered from seizures that night and he reached across A.S. to
prevent J.S. from flailing.
PROCEDURE
The State of Washington charged Roger Flook with one count of child molestation
in the first degree and one count of child rape in the first degree. Before trial, Flook's
attorney filed motions in limine to preclude, among other things, the State from
mentioning Flook's criminal history, earlier time in prison, and use of controlled
substances. The State responded that mention ofFlook's earlier prison stay held
relevance because Flook's release date from incarceration constituted an important event
in A.S.'s life and a date from which A.S. measured other events.
A third motion in limine sought to preclude:
Any claims of conduct not directly related to the alleged incidents of
June 6, 2014, including claims that the defendant talks about inappropriate
things, showed internet images, including anime characters, used profanity,
3
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
discussed finding a sex toy in [A.S.'] mother's drawer, that defendant
spanked [A.S.] on her bottom, that defendant asked [A.S.] to sit on his lap
in a car in the driveway of their home in Endicott, Washington, and the
claim that the defendant has kissed [A.S.] on the neck.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 10. Roger Flook based his third motion on ER 404. Flook argued
that the conduct mentioned in the motion, assuming any occurred, happened after June 6,
2014, and thus bore no probative value as to whether he committed the charged crimes.
Flook contended the only purpose for testimony of such behavior would be to tag him as
a bad person. The State argued the evidence demonstrated his lust toward A.S. and thus
the trial court should admit the evidence under the second sentence of ER 404(b).
The trial court granted Roger Flook's motion to exclude evidence of drug use,
Flook's time in prison, and his release date from prison. The trial court denied the
motion to exclude testimony of other sexually inappropriate touching of A.S. by Flook.
The trial court reserved ruling on the latter motion at the conclusion of oral argument and
thus rendered no comments on the merits of the motion then. The trial court later entered
a written order that declared:
Motion to Exclude Sexually Inappropriate Conduct Directed Toward
[A.S.]
This motion is denied. The proffered evidence, if believed, has a
strong tendency to demonstrate a lustful disposition toward the alleged
victim. It also tends to show motive, intent, knowledge, and absence of
mistake or accident.
CP at 39 (boldface omitted).
4
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
At trial, Whitman County Sheriff Brett Myers, who conducted the investigation of
A.S. 's allegations, testified extensively. In response to a question about Flook's
demeanor during Myers' first interview with him, Myers testified:
Mr. Flook, it was about three o'clock in the afternoon. Mr. Flook
appeared to be very tired, possibly-possibly under the influence of a
substance, rolled his eyes quite a bit, couldn't keep his eyes open
sometimes, acted-it seemed like he had just been rolled out of bed almost
and often times questions needed to be asked a couple of times in order to
elicit an answer. Yeah-
RP at 51.
On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Sheriff Brett Myers about
inconsistencies in A.S.'s statement. Counsel also asked, "[w]ould you agree with me that
girls are not always telling the truth?" RP at 60. The following colloquy then occurred:
MYERS: Are you talking about, in what context?
LEDGERWOOD [Defense Counsel]: When they make sexual abuse
allegations.
MYERS: In by far and away the vast majority of the cases I have
done they are telling-they're not making it up.
LEDGERWOOD: Are there cases where they are making it up?
MYERS: I've had one or two out of hundreds.
CP at 61.
The State, on redirect examination, elicited testimony from Sheriff Brett Myers
regarding the veracity of the statements of A.S. and Roger Flook. Sheriff Myers gave the
following testimony on redirect:
[The State]: Mr. Ledgerwood was asking you about experience in
prior cases with girls who would make these things up and you indicated
5
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
the vast majority were determined to be founded. As part of your training,
in both general law enforcement and sexual abuse to identify signs of
deception during an interview?
MYERS: Yes.
[The State]: Can you describe that briefly to the jury?
MYERS: Well, certainly any time that you are interviewing
someone, just like establishing whether a person knows the truth from the
untruth, or having some sort of grandiose statement. Sometimes what you
do is you ask questions several different ways to make sure that what
they're saying is consistent and then you also take into consideration their
body language, their demeanor, to help determine whether or not a
statement on its face value is true. In this particular case, all of her body
language was consistent with someone, based on my training and
experience that was telling the truth. There was nothing that was overly
grandiose, so what I mean by that is sometimes when people are explaining
something that is almost fantastical and unbelievable, then you start having
to question is that really the way it is or when people describe things that
are in a way that's much more in the a way we see things happen, then you
start-you look at a statement different based on answers and then again,
you come back around and ask different questions and you look to see if
there's consistency and then compare that consistency with other
statements that other witnesses might give down the road.
[The State]: So, during the course of the interview, whether it's a
victim of sex or a witness or otherwise, you're looking for possible signs of
deception?
MYERS: Yes.
[The State]: And you didn't see any or did you see any with A.S.?
LEDGERWOOD: Your Honor, the question has been asked and
answered. He's really asking the witness, does he believe her or not.
[The State]: No, I'm asking whether he saw-it's an appropriate
question.
JUDGE: Let's not talk over the top of each other gentlemen.
LEDGERWOOD: That's the province of the jury to decide if she's
telling the truth or not and the question has been asked and answered. He
was asked if he saw signs of deception and he answered that.
[The State]: Your Honor, he had not answered that question. He,
and it is, he is not being asked whether he believed the witness or whether
the witness was credible, just that did he observe any signs of deception
when interviewing A.S.
6
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
JUDGE: I'll agree with the State. Go ahead.
[The State]: Did you observe any signs of deception in your
interview with A.S.?
MYERS: No I did not.
RP 69-71.
[The State]: ... Now, during your interview with Mr. Flook, did
you observe any signs of deception?
MYERS: What I would consider based on my training and
experience, I felt as though the answers-
[The State]: Let me, not your opinion-
MYERS: Okay-
[The State]: As to the truth or the falseness of the statements he
made. Did you observe any signs or signals to you that there may be
deception?
MYERS: Inconsistencies from what other people had indicated
would be that there were some inconsistencies with what he said.
[The State]: How about the lack of memory about the general subject
matter when you initially inquired.
MYERS: So, often times when asking people questions if something
as memorable as maybe going to a marriage counseling retreat when you
ask that, that would be something most people would be like oh yeah, I
remember going to that a year ago. It's not a guarantee, but in this
particular case it's a very important fact of the case and when one of the
very important facts of the case is when you ask that question and there's
not an immediate memory and in fact it's a memory that has to be jarred
and then they remember that. To me that's a sign of trying to be evasive in
providing an answer, which is a sign of deceptiveness. So, when we look
for evasiveness in answering, having to repeat questions several times that
are very direct and simple questions, often times those are indications that
a person is being deceptive and in the interview with Mr. Flook I did see
that.
[The State]: And contrasting that with his fairly quick memory about
the sleeping arrangement and the order of people in that bed on that night,
did that-did that strike you?
MYERS: Um to some degree, yes absolutely, because again not
having a memory that it needed to be jarred and then on some of the other
questions with very quick responses, did you ever do this, no. Did you ever
7
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
do this, no. Some of the questions simply could have, to just say no would
tell me that a person has a very good memory if they are just absolutely
sure that didn't happen, but to not be able to remember a trip to the hotel in
Clarkston would be an example of.
[The State]: So, remember or not remembering the general event but
then remembering details immediately about that event?
MYERS: Like sleeping arrangement, where everybody slept.
[The State]: Or-
MYERS: Reaching over specifically not being able to remember
going to the hotel, but then once being reminded being able to remember
that during the night when there was a seizure that they reached over to stop
the flailing of the arms. Those are, I guess sometimes you look for
convenient memories or convenient losses of memory, as a deceptive
answer.
[The State]: Or the-him not remembering her sitting on his lap in
the vehicle but then remembering he terminated the contact by needing to
go to the bathroom?
MYERS: Right.
RP at 73-75 (emphasis added).
A.S. testified about the alleged rape and molestation. She said:
A.S.: Well, I felt it touch my area and so I felt uncomfortable.
[The State]: By area what are we-what are you talking about, what
do you mean by your area.
A.S.: Like-
[The State]: So, when you're talking about-when you're talking
about are you talking about outside in the front at this point?
A.S.: Yeah.
RP at 115-16.
[The State]: From your sex ed class do you know what labia are?
A.S.:No.
[The State]: Did it go down into the area where you go potty?
A.S.: Just a tiny bit and that was yeah just like not even much, no?
8
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
[The State]: Like when you say not even much, can you explain
that?
A.S.: Like maybe just a tiny bit of a fingertip.
[The State]: And did that go inside the opening or just-can you
explain?
A.S.: Not exactly, just-no I can't really explain it.
[The State]: Can you show me with your fingers.
A.S.: Like just like that.
[The State]: Can you demonstrate it? Hold it up, I'm sorry.
A.S.: Just like this.
[The State]: So, just inside the folds, in the-the-
A.S.: Mmm hmm.
[The State]: Split there. How about further into the, you know what
your vagina is?
A.S.:No.
[The State]: Not, you mean no you don't know or no, not in that far?
A.S.: Not in that far.
RPat117-18.
A.S. testified about other incidents when Roger Flook acted inappropriately. He
showed her anime porn and talked to her about sex. She sat on his lap. Flook spanked
her randomly.
Nicole Konen A.S.'s counselor, declared during trial:
[The State]: Did [A.S.] indicate to you a timeframe when this
[touching] had happened?
KONEN: Right after he got out of jail.
[Defense Counsel]: I'm going to object and ask that that part of the
answer be stricken.
JUDGE: That will be stricken.
RP at 216.
[Defense Counsel]: And so [A.S.] tells you for the first time
something that she said happened fourteen months earlier.
9
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
KONEN: Right.
[Defense Counsel]: Did you understand the date to be June of 2014.
KONEN: I did not know the date. I just knew it was sometime after
and I didn't know when Roger was even in jail, so!-
[Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, I'm going to ask again that any
reference to jail be stricken.
KONEN: That was the only date I had.
[Defense Counsel]: And the witness be instructed.
JUDGE: That will be stricken and you're not to make reference to
any kind of jail or anything associated about that.
RP at 224.
Roger Flook did not testify at trial. The jury found Flook guilty of child
molestation in the first degree and child rape in the first degree.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On appeal, Roger Flook argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for
mistrial following Nicole Konen's violation of the court's order in limine precluding
mention ofFlook's time in jail, by admitting opinion testimony from Sheriff Brett Myers,
and by admitting testimony of other sexual misconduct with A.S. Because the State
contends that Roger Flook's trial counsel did not object to the testimony of Brett Myers,
Flook contends he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel. According to Flook,
counsel also performed ineffectively by failing to request a limiting jury instruction with
regard to the evidence of other sexual misconduct. Finally, Flook contends cumulative
error deprived him of a fair trial.
10
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
We hold that the trial court committed error by allowing Sheriff Brett Myers to
testify to the veracity of Roger Flook and A.S. and that such error was harmful. Since we
do not expect a witness to violate the trial court's order in limine during a second trial, we
do not address Flook's assignment of error based on Nicole Konen's violation of the
order. We also need not address Flook's contention of cumulative error and ineffective
assistance of counsel. Because the issue of evidence of Flook's other touching of A.S.
will likely arise on a retrial, we address this third assignment of error.
Sheriff Brett Myers' Testimony
Roger Flook contends the trial court erred by admitting testimony from Sheriff
Brett Myers, in which Myers opined about Flook's deceptiveness and A.S.'s truthfulness.
Flook argues that this testimony embraced the ultimate issue of guilt and thus reaches
constitutional magnitude. The State argues that, without conceding inadmissibility of the
testimony, Flook failed to preserve the issue. It contends that counsel only objected on
the basis that the question had previously been asked and answered and that Myers'
indistinct statements do not attain constitutional magnitude. The State does not argue that
Flook's earlier questioning of Sheriff Myers about some girls fabricating stories opened
the door for testimony concerning the credibility of A.S.
11
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
Testimony about A.S.
We distinguish between testimony from Sheriff Brett Myers about A.S. and the
I
!
sheriffs testimony about Roger Flook. We must first determine if Flook objected to
I Myers' testimony about A.S.'s veracity.
I
I
I ER 103 governs rulings on evidence; it reads:
I (a) Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon
a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the
party is affected, and
I
j
( 1) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a
! timely objection or motion to strike is made, stating the specific ground of
I objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context[.]
I'
On the one hand, an objection that does not specify the particular ground on which it is
based is insufficient to preserve the question for appellate review. State v. Guloy, 104
Wn.2d 412,422, 705 P.2d 1182 (1985). On the other hand, all that is required of any
objection to evidence is that the objection be sufficiently clear and definite so that the
trial court will understand the reason for the objection. Walley v. La Plata Volunteer Fire
Department, 368 S.W.3d 224,232 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
Roger Flook's defense counsel objected to Sheriff Myers' testimony:
Your Honor, the question has been asked and answered. He's really
asking the witness, does he believe her or not.
RP at 71. In his next comments to the court, before Myers answered the question,
counsel reiterated:
That's the province of the jury to decide if she's telling the truth or
12
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
not and the question has been asked and answered.
RP at 71. We disagree with the State's contention that the objection did not suffice.
Counsel's comments notified the trial court that Flook objected to the testimony because
a witness may not opine on the credibility of a witness.
Because the issue was preserved, we address directly the merits of Roger Flook's
claim that the trial court erroneously allowed testimony from Sheriff Brett Myers that
vouched for the credibility of A.S. We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude
evidence for an abuse of discretion. Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, 168 Wn.2d 664, 668, 230
P .3d 583 (2010). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly
unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons. Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, 168
Wn.2d at 668-69. A decision is based on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons if
the trial court applies the wrong legal standard or relies on unsupported facts. In re
Detention ofDuncan, 167 Wn.2d 398,403,219 P.3d 666 (2009). We conclude the trial
court applied the wrong legal standard when overruling Flook's objection to Brett Myers'
testimony.
No reliable test for truthfulness exists, such that a witness is not qualified to judge
the truthfulness of a child's story. United States v. Azure, 801 F.2d 336,341 (8th Cir.
1986); State v. Dunn, 125 Wn. App. 582, 594, 105 P.3d 1022 (2005). This rule is but a
more specific application of the general rule that no witness may give an opinion on
another witness's credibility. State v. Neidigh, 78 Wn. App. 71, 76-77, 895 P.2d 423
13
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
(1995); State v. Wright, 76 Wn. App. 811, 821-22, 888 P.2d 1214 (1995); State v. Suarez-
Bravo, 72 Wn. App. 359,366,864 P.2d 426 (1994); State v. Padilla, 69 Wn. App. 295,
299, 846 P.2d 564 (1993); State v. Walden, 69 Wn. App. 183, 186-87, 847 P.2d 956
(1993); State v. Smith, 67 Wn. App. 838, 846, 841 P.2d 76 (1992); State v. Stover, 67
Wn. App. 228,231, 834 P.2d 671 (1992); State v. Casteneda-Perez, 61 Wn. App. 354,
362-63, 810 P.2d 74 (1991); State v. Barrow, 60 Wn. App. 869, 875, 809 P.2d 209
( 1991 ). Lay opinion of the truthfulness of another is not helpful within the meaning of
ER 701, because the jury can assess credibility as well or better than the lay witness.
State v. Carlson, 80 Wn. App. 116, 123, 906 P.2d 999 (1995).
In most sexual abuse cases, the respective credibility of the victim and the
defendant is a crucial question because the testimony of each directly conflicts and the
two are the only percipient witnesses. State v. Alexander, 64 Wn. App. 147, 154, 822
P.2d 1250 (1992); State v. Fitzgerald, 39 Wn. App. 652, 657, 694 P.2d 1117 (1985).
Therefore, declaring the victim to be telling the truth in essence opines that the defendant
is guilty. Declaring the defendant to be prevaricating also in essence opines that the
defendant is guilty. Opinions on guilt are improper whether made directly or by
inference. State v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191,199,340 P.3d 213 (2014); State v.
Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 594, 183 P.3d 267 (2008).
Sheriff Brett Myers did not directly testify that A.S. told the truth when describing
Roger Flook's touching her genitalia. Myers did not explicitly state that he believed
14
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
A.S.'s allegations. Instead, Myers told the jury that all of A.S. 's body language was
consistent with telling the truth. Conversely, according to Myers, A.S. gave no signs of
deception.
The Washington Supreme Court has addressed whether testimony of a witness
concerning the reliability of statements of another witness constitutes impermissible
vouching. The Supreme Court wrote:
In determining whether such statements are impermissible opinion
testimony, the court will consider the circumstances of the case, including
the following factors: ( 1) the type of witness involved, (2) the specific
nature of the testimony, (3) the nature of the charges, (4) the type of
defense, and (5) the other evidence before the trier of fact.
State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918,928, 155 P.3d 125 (2007) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
We address these five factors with respect to Sheriff Brett Myers' comments about
A.S. Testimony from a law enforcement officer regarding the veracity of another witness
may be especially prejudicial because an officer's testimony often carries a special aura
of reliability. State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d at 928. As to the second factor, Sheriff
Myers essentially told the jury that A.S. told the truth. More importantly, Myers
introduced his testimony by mentioning his training in deception detection and couched
his opinion of A.S. 's truthful mannerism as based on his experience and training. In
short, Myers qualified himself and testified as an expert on the credibility of witnesses.
15
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
We distinguish this appeal from State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918 (2007), wherein
the Washington Supreme Court approved the State's questions regarding the competency
protocol that police officers follow with child witnesses. The court observed that the
protocol functionally coincided with the oath every witness takes before testifying. In
State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577 (2008), the state Supreme Court reiterated an
observation from Kirkman, that to avoid inviting witnesses to express their personal
beliefs, one permissible and perhaps preferred way is for trial counsel to phrase the
question "is it consistent with" instead of "do you believe." State v. Montgomery, 163
Wn.2d at 592. Sheriff Brett Myers' testimony follows this formula. Nevertheless, his
testimony went beyond the formula.
The third Kirkman factor is the nature of the suit. Our appeal involves sexual
touching of a child. Cases involving child sex abuse inevitably render the child's
credibility a central issue. State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d at 933. In most sexual abuse
cases, the respective credibility of the victim and the defendant is a crucial question
because the testimony of each directly conflicts and the two are the only percipient
witnesses. State v. Alexander, 64 Wn. App. at 154 (1992); State v. Fitzgerald, 39 Wn.
App. at 657 (1985).
The fourth Kirkman factor is the nature of the defense. Roger Flook's defense was
a general denial. The defense hinged on emphasizing inconsistencies in A.S.'s testimony
and Flook's innocent explanation. Roger Flook did not testify at trial. Nevertheless, the
16
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
State presented testimony from Sheriff Brett Myers that Flook, during a police interview,
denied any touching of A.S. 's private area. Thus, the State indirectly told the jury of
Flook's defense.
The fifth and last Kirkman factor is other evidence. The State lacked physical
evidence and corroborating eyewitness testimony. The State's evidence included A.S.'s
testimony and Sheriff Myers' testimony about A.S. and Flook.
All five Kirkman factors favor Roger Flook. Therefore, we hold the trial court
applied the wrong legal standard when permitting the testimony and thereby abused its
discretion. We later discuss the harm of the impermissible vouching.
Testimony about Roger Flook
We agree with the State that Roger Flook did not object below to Sheriff Brett
Myers' testimony concerning Flook's behavior during Myers' interview of Flook.
Therefore, unless Flook meets the stringent requirements of RAP 2.5, this court will not
review this assignment of error.
RAP 2.5(a) formalizes a fundamental principle of appellate review. The first
sentence of RAP 2.5 reads:
(a) Errors Raised for First Time on Review. The appellate court
may refuse to review any claim of error which was not raised in the trial
court.
No procedural principle is more familiar than that a constitutional right, or a right
of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal cases by the failure to make timely
17
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it. United States
v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 123 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1993); Yakus v. United
States, 321 U.S. 414,444, 64 S. Ct. 660, 88 L. Ed. 834 (1944). Sound reasoning lies
behind the requirement that arguments be first asserted at trial. The prerequisite affords
the trial court an opportunity to rule correctly on a matter before it can be presented on
appeal. State v. Strine, 176 Wn.2d 742, 749, 293 P.3d 1177 (2013). There is great
potential for abuse when a party does not raise an issue below because a party so situated
could simply lie back, not allowing the trial court to avoid the potential prejudice, gamble
on the verdict, and then seek a new trial on appeal. State v. Weber, 159 Wn.2d 252, 271-
72, 149 P.3d 646 (2006); State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 762, 278 P.3d 653 (2012). The
theory of preservation by timely objection also addresses several other concerns. The
rule serves the goal of judicial economy by enabling trial courts to correct mistakes and
thereby obviate the needless expense of appellate review and further triafs, facilitates
appellate review by ensuring that a complete record of the issues will be available, and
prevents adversarial unfairness by ensuring that the prevailing party is not deprived of
victory by claimed errors that he had no opportunity to address. State v. Strine, 176
Wn.2d at 749-50; State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 688, 757 P.2d 492 (1998).
Countervailing policies support allowing an argument to be raised for the first time
on appeal. For this reason, RAP 2.5(a) contains a number of exceptions. RAP 2.5(a)
allows an appellant to raise for the first time "manifest error affecting a constitutional
18
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
right," an exception on which criminal appellants commonly rely. Constitutional errors
are treated specially under RAP 2.5(a) because they often result in serious injustice to the
accused and may adversely affect public perceptions of the fairness and integrity of
judicial proceedings. State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d at 686-87. Prohibiting all constitutional
errors from being raised for the first time on appeal would result in unjust imprisonment.
2A KARL B. TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: RULES PRACTICE RAP 2.5 author's cmt.
6, at 218 (8th ed. 2014). On the other hand, "permitting every possible constitutional
error to be raised for the first time on appeal undermines the trial process, generates
unnecessary appeals, creates undesirable retrials and is wasteful of the limited resources
of prosecutors, public defenders and courts." State v. Lynn, 67 Wn. App. 339, 344, 835
P.2d 251 (1992).
Washington courts and even decisions internally have announced differing
formulations for "manifest error." First, a manifest error is one "truly of constitutional
magnitude." State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d at 688. Second, perhaps perverting the term
"manifest," some decisions emphasize prejudice, not obviousness. The defendant must
identify a constitutional error and show how, in the context of the trial, the alleged error
actually affected the defendant's rights. It is this showing of actual prejudice that makes
the error "manifest," allowing appellate review. State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99,217
P.3d 756 (2009); State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d at 688; State v. Lynn, 67 Wn. App. at 346. A
third and important formulation for purposes of this appeal is the facts necessary to
19
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
adjudicate the claimed error must be in the record on appeal. State v. McFarland, 127
Wn.2d 322,333,899 P.2d 1251 (1995); State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 31,846 P.2d 1365
(1993).
For the same reasons that we conclude that Sheriff Brett Myers' testimony
concerning A.S.'s credibility constituted impermissible witness vouching, we conclude
that Myers' testimony concerning his interview of Roger Flook to constitute proscribed
witness vouching. Although Sheriff Myers did not directly declare Flook to be a liar,
Myers characterized Flook as deceptive and evasive. Myers accused Flook of possessing
a convenient memory and a convenient loss of memory. The purpose of Myers'
testimony was to destroy Flook's credibility and defense of a general denial. Myers
promoted his testimony as based on his experience and training as a law enforcement
officer. The attack on Flook's veracity focused on the heart of the prosecution. To
repeat, the State lacked physical evidence and corroborating testimony from a percipient
witness.
We also determine the error to be manifest constitutional error. In so holding, we
employ the test that manifest constitutional error involves a constitutional error that had
practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case. State v. Lynn, 67 Wn.
App. at 345.
Lay witness testimony about the victim's or defendant's credibility implicates the
accused's guilt or innocence and thus implicates the accused's right to a fair trial and
20
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
impartial jury under article I, section 21 of the Washington State Constitution and the
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Johnson, 152 Wn. App.
924, 934, 219 P.3d 958 (2009). The admission of testimony vouching for a witness is
constitutional error because such evidence violates the defendant's constitutional right to
a jury trial, which includes the independent determination of the facts by the jury. State
v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d at 199 (2014); State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d at 927 (2007); State v.
Florczak, 76 Wn. App. 55, 74, 882 P.2d 199 (1994). Vouching testimony is also
manifest error because the erroneous evidence actually affects an accused's right to a fair
trial. State v. Johnson, 152 Wn. App. at 934.
Upon a showing by the appellant of constitutional error, the State must show that
the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Miller, 131 Wn.2d 78, 90,
929 P.2d 372 (1997). Manifest constitutional error is harmless only if the untainted
evidence is so overwhelming that it necessarily supports a guilty verdict. State v. Guloy,
104 Wn.2d at 426 (1985); State v. Jones, 71 Wn. App. 798, 813, 863 P.2d 85 (1993).
Any error that infringes on a constitutional right is presumed prejudicial. State v. Dunn,
125 Wn. App. at 593 (2005).
Four Washington decisions compel reversal of Roger Flook's guilty conviction.
In State v. Sutherby, 138 Wn. App. 609, 158 P.3d 91 (2007), aff'd on other grounds, 165
Wn.2d 870,204 P.3d 916 (2009), a jury convicted Randy Sutherby of child rape and
child molestation, among other charges. This court reversed because the trial court
21
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
allowed the victim's mother to testify that her daughter was telling the truth. The mother
stated she could determine if her daughter lied because of a half-smile that appeared on
the child's face on prevarication.
A second important decision is State v. Alexander, 64 Wn. App. 147 (1992). The
prosecution questioned the victim's counselor, David Bennett, about whether the victim
gave any indication that she was lying about the abuse. Bennett testified he did not
believe the victim lied. This court reversed the conviction of Robert Alexander for child
rape. By declaring the victim to be speaking the truth, Bennett essentially opined on the
guilt of Alexander. An expert's opinion as to the defendant's guilt invades the jury's
exclusive function to weigh the evidence and determine credibility. Without analysis,
this court also concluded that the error, combined with other error, was not harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another important decision is State v. Dunn, 125 Wn. App. 582 (2005). This
court reversed another conviction for rape of a child on the ground of inadmissible
testimony. Physician's assistant, James Kramer, testified that, despite an absence of any
physical evidence of rape, he concluded that sexual abuse occurred because of the
detailed story told him by the victim. The impermissible testimony was prejudicial
because the only evidence of sexual abuse was the child's own testimony and hearsay
statements to others. The evidence was sufficient to convict Larry Dunn of rape, but still
22
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
not harmless. The trial became a credibility contest between the alleged victim and the
accused.
A final compelling decision is State v. Johnson, 152 Wn. App. 924 (2009). The
State charged Gerald Johnson with child molestation. His trial counsel failed to object to
impermissible opinion testimony. The jury heard testimony that Johnson's wife believed
the story of the victim. The court held the testimony to be reversible and manifest
constitutional error. The testimony invaded Johnson's right under article I, section 2 of
the Washington Constitution for a fair trial before an impartial jury.
The State astutely observes that only explicit or almost explicit statements by a
witness rise to the level of constitutional error reviewable for the first time on appeal.
State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d at 937 (2007). The State contends that Sheriff Brett Myers
did not engage in explicit vouching. Roger Flook argues that Myers' testimony is
sufficiently explicit to rise to the level of constitutional error. We agree with Flook.
Sheriff Myers' testimony inevitably told the jury that Flook, in Myers' view,
prevaricated.
State v. Barr, 123 Wn. App. 373, 98 P.3d 518 (2004) enlightens our opinion.
Derrick Barr met A.J. at a bar, where both imbibed. The two departed the bar.
According to A.J ., Barr then pushed her into the back of a car and forced her to have anal,
oral, and vaginal sex with him. When released, A.J. ran naked from the waist down
while screaming and sobbing. A.J. suffered abrasions, bruising, and a bite mark.
23
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
According to Barr, A.J. seduced him. At trial, Officer Brett Koss testified about
interviewing Barr while employing the Reid Investigative Technique, which entailed the
use of verbal and nonverbal clues to determine an interviewee's deceptiveness. On direct
examination, Koss testified to signals of deception:
What I have been taught [by] some of these schools is people feel
guilty and that they realize there is [sic] consequences and lots of times
they'll verbalize those fears. So it was obvious to me he was afraid he was
going to go to prison for this .
. . . [T]hat' s one of the big flags like that and like utterances about
the thing going to prison, those are big flags when you see those things start
to bunch together. You get an idea somebody is being deceptive .
. . . Again, it didn't seem genuine to me. It didn't seem like ifhe
was really feeling these emotions and that worked up he would be hitting
the table and stuff. He wouldn't have these ups and downs so quickly.
State v. Barr, 123 Wn. App. at 378-79 (alteration in original) (italics omitted).
In analyzing Officer Brett Koss' s testimony, this court observed:
The State maintains that the testimony here was not improper
because the officer did not testify that Mr. Barr was being deceptive, but,
rather, the officer's testimony consisted of observations of Mr. Barr's
behavior indicating that there were signs that Mr. Barr was being deceptive.
This is a distinction without a difference. The officer's testimony was
clearly designed to give the officer's opinion as to whether Mr. Barr had
committed the offense ....
In short, the officer's testimony invaded the province of the jury by
impermissibly commenting on Mr. Barr's guilt.
State v. Barr, 123 Wn. App. at 382-83.
24
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
The untainted evidence against Roger Flook does not overwhelm. Therefore, the
constitutional error likely impacted the trial. To repeat a second time, the State, through
no fault of its own, lacked physical evidence and corroborating eyewitness testimony.
The trial pitted the veracity of A.S. and Roger Flook. The respected testimony of a
county sheriff as to the veracity of the two would likely influence the jury.
Flook's Prior Acts
Roger Flook seeks reversal of his convictions because the trial court purportedly,
without any analysis on the record, erroneously admitted evidence of other bad acts under
ER 404(b) and the error harmed him. The State responds that the record suffices to
establish that the trial court conducted the appropriate analysis. Because this issue may
arise on a retrial, we address whether the trial court employed the needed analysis.
Because we reverse on other grounds, we do not address whether any error was harmless.
Washington's familiar ER 404(b) reads, in relevant part:
Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes,
wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order
to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for
other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,
plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
A trial court's interpretation of ER 404(b) is a question of law that this court reviews de
novo. State v. De Vincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11, 17, 74 P.3d 119 (2003). ER 404(b) prohibits
evidence of past misdeeds solely to prove a defendant's criminal propensity. State v.
Nelson, 131 Wn. App. 108, 115, 125 P.3d 1008 (2006). Evidence of prior bad acts is
25
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
presumed inadmissible, and any doubts as to admissibility are resolved in favor of
exclusion. State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d at 17; State v. Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630,
642, 41 P.3d 1159 (2002). The question asked here is whether Roger Flook's showing of
Internet images to A.S., use of profanity, telling A.S. that he found a sex toy in A.S.'s
mother's drawer, spanking A.S. on her bottom, asking A.S. to sit on his lap in a car in the
driveway of their home, and kissing A.S. on the neck was relevant to prove something
other than propensity.
Before the trial court admits evidence of prior misconduct under ER 404(b ), the
court must (1) find by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior misconduct
occurred, (2) identify the purpose for admitting the evidence, (3) determine the relevance
of the evidence to prove an element of the crime, and (4) weigh the probative value of the
evidence against its prejudicial effect. State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 745, 202 P.3d 937
(2009); State v. De Vincentis, 150 Wn.2d at 17. The trial court must conduct the above
analysis on the record. State v. Asaeli, 150 Wn. App. 543, 576 n.34, 208 P.3d 1136
(2009). The requirement for on the record balancing facilitates appellate review and
ensures that the judge gives thoughtful consideration to the issue. State v. Pirtle, 127
Wn.2d 628,651,904 P.2d 245 (1995).
The record on appeal shows the trial court identified the purpose of the evidence to
be demonstrating a lustful disposition toward A.S., motive, intent, knowledge, and
absence of mistake or accident. We might assume that the trial court considered the
26
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
evidence relevant to whether Roger Flook touched A.S.'s private area on June 6, 2014.
Nevertheless, the trial court, on the record, did not find the evidence to likely be true and
did not weigh the prejudice of the testimony with the probative value of the evidence.
We direct the trial court, before any retrial, to address all four ER 404(b) elements before
determining whether to permit the evidence at trial.
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS
Roger Flook raises two issues in his statement of additional grounds: ( 1) did the
trial court err by not dismissing both charged counts when the elements of each count
were not met, and (2) did the State deny Roger Flook his constitutional right to a fair
trial. This court requested additional briefing from the parties, as allowed under RAP
10.IO(f), by answering the following questions:
( 1) Does statement of additional ground 1 raise a sufficiency of the
evidence claim or is it limited to an appeal of the motion to dismiss for
failure to make a prima facie case made following the State's case in chief?
(2) Is there sufficient evidence to support Flook's conviction for
child rape in the first degree?
In Roger Flook's supplemental brief, he argues the statement of additional ground
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict of both crimes. The State asks this
court to consider Flook's statement of additional grounds as a challenge to the denial of a
midtrial motion to dismiss. We give Flook the benefit of the doubt and review whether
sufficient evidence supports the convictions. Since we hold that sufficient evidence
27
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
supports the convictions, the State suffers no prejudice. Despite reversing the conviction
and remanding for a new trial on other grounds, we address the sufficiency of evidence
because an absence of sufficiency would require dismissal of the charges with prejudice.
Roger Flook contends insufficient evidence establishes penetration of A.S.'s
vagina for purposes of the child rape charge. Evidence is sufficient if a rational trier of
fact could find each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94
Wn.2d 216, 221-22, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). Both direct and indirect evidence may support
the jury's verdict. State v. Brooks, 45 Wn. App. 824, 826, 727 P.2d 988 (1986). This
court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the State. State v. Partin, 88 Wn.2d 899,
906-07, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977). Only the trier of fact weighs the evidence and judges the
credibility of witnesses. State v. Carver, 113 Wn.2d 591, 604, 781 P.2d 1308, 789 P.2d
306 (1989).
The controlling statute, RCW 9A.44.073, declares:
A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the
person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old
and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four
months older than the victim.
Another Washington statute defines "sexual intercourse" as:
(a) has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration,
however slight, and
(b) [a]lso means any penetration of the vagina or anus however
slight, by an object[.]
28
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
RCW 9A.44.010(1). "Vagina" means "all of the components of the female sexual organ
and not just '[t]he passage leading from the opening of the vulva to the cervix of the
uterus .... "' State v. Montgomery, 95 Wn. App. 192,200,974 P.2d 904 (1999)
(alterations in original) (quoting THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE, 1970 (3d ed. 1992)). The Montgomery court determined that "vagina"
includes the "labia minora." 95 Wn. App. at 201. The labia minora are the two thin inner
folds of skin enclosed by the labia majora. State v. Montgomery, 95 Wn. App. at 201.
The State must prove that the defendant penetrated, at a minimum, the lips of the sexual
organs. State v. Bishop, 63 Wn. App. 15, 19, 816 P.2d 738 (1991).
State v. Delgado, 109 Wn. App. 61, 33 P.3d 753 (2001), rev'd on other grounds
148 Wn.2d 733, 63 P.3d 792 (2003), informs our decision. Dumas Delgado took an
eight-year-old girl inside his home and put his hand down her pants, inside her
underwear, and rubbed her vagina. The child later told an interviewer and defense
investigator that Delgado touched her "' up in the inside part of [her] private,'" "' in the
folds"' of her external genitalia, but his finger did not go into the '"hole"' that goes up
inside her body. State v. Delgado, 109 Wn. App. at 63-64. The court found this evidence
sufficient to establish penetration. State v. Delgado, 109 Wn. App. at 65-66.
A.S. testified that Roger Flook penetrated the folds of her genitalia. This
testimony supported the jury's conviction for first degree rape.
Roger Flook also contends that insufficient evidence establishes the crime of
29
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
sexual molestation. He argues that the evidence does not support a finding that the
alleged contact was "sexual contact" within the definition ofRCW 9A.44.0IO and
RCW 9A.44.083.
Under RCW 9A.44.083(1):
A person is guilty of child molestation in the first degree when the
person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen
to have, sexual contact with another who is less than twelve years old and
not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six
months older than the victim.
RCW 9A.44.010(2) defines "sexual contact" as
any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done
for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party or a third party.
While in the criminal context direct evidence of sexual gratification is not required; the
evidence must support an inference of sexual gratification. State v. Powell, 62 Wn. App.
914, 917-18, 816 P.2d 86 (1991); State v. Price, 127 Wn. App. 193,202, 110 P.3d 1171
(2005), aff'd, 158 Wn.2d 630, 146 P.3d 1183 (2006).
In State v. Powell, 62 Wn. App. 914, this court found the evidence insufficient to
support an inference that the defendant's touching of a child was for sexual gratification.
Harry Powell touched a female child on three occasions:
[W]hile she was seated on his lap, [he] hugged her around the chest.
As h~ assisted her off his lap he placed his hand on her "front" and bottom
on her underpanties under her skirt. On another occasion, while [the child]
was alone with [the defendant] in his truck waiting for her cousin, he
touched both her thighs. On both occasions, he only touched her on the
30
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
outside of her clothing .... She was unable to describe how he touched
her.
State v. Powell, 62 Wn. App. at 916. In finding insufficient evidence, the court
emphasized the fact that the touches were fleeting and "equivocal" and thus susceptible
of innocent explanation. State v. Powell, 62 Wn. App. at 917-18. We explained that the
defendant touched the child's bottom while lifting her off his lap; that the child did not
remember how the defendant touched her "in the front part"; that when she told him to
stop he said, "Oops" and stopped. The child was clothed on each occasion, the touches
were outside the clothes, and Powell uttered no threats, bribes, or requests not to tell. The
court declared that the State must present additional evidence of sexual gratification when
the touching occurs through clothing or when the touching is of intimate parts of the body
other than the primary erogenous area.
State v. Price, 127 Wn. App. 193 (2005) presents the opposite outcome. This
court found sufficient evidence to support an inference of sexual gratification when the
defendant rubbed a child's vagina long enough to cause redness and swelling still visible
when the child's mother picked her up from day care. In so holding, the court explained
that no additional evidence was required because the sexual contact was not fleeting or
susceptible of innocent explanation.
In this appeal, the testimony indicated that Roger Flook touched A.S. 's primary
erogenous zone multiple times under her clothing. When she rolled away, he said "come
31
No. 34220-4-111
State v. Flook
on." There is no innocent explanation for a grown man to put his hands down an eleven-
year-old girl's pants while in bed with her. Sufficient evidence supports "sexual
contact."
Roger Flook next contends that the prosecuting attorney breached his
constitutional duty when he failed to investigate false and contradictory testimony. Flook
emphasizes multiple witnesses provided conflicting statements. He characterizes these
contradictions as false testimony. We consider this argument to raise a due process
contention.
Under the United States Constitution, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
guarantee persons accused of a crime the right to a fair trial. State v. Davis, 141 Wn.2d
798, 824-25, 10 P.3d 977 (2000). The Washington Constitution provides a similar
safeguard. WASH. CONST. art. I, ยงยง 3, 22.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution imposes on prosecutors a duty not to introduce perjured testimony or use
evidence known to be false to convict a defendant. State v. Finnegan, 6 Wn. App. 612,
616,495 P.2d 674 (1972). This duty requires the prosecutor to correct State witnesses
who testify falsely. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S. Ct. 1173, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1217
(1959); State v. Finnegan, 6 Wn. App. at 616. To succeed on his claim that the
prosecutor used false evidence to convict him, Flook must show that ( 1) the testimony or
evidence was actually false, (2) the prosecutor knew or should have known that the
32
No. 34220-4-III
State v. Flook
testimony was actually false, and (3) that the false testimony was material. United States
v. Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2003).
Though Roger Flook identifies some contradictions in testimony of various
witnesses, he provides no support for his contention that the State knowingly presented
false testimony. Contradiction is normal when witnesses view events from different
vantage points. Contradiction does not equate to lies. Contradiction does not mean
perjury.
CONCLUSION
We reverse Roger Flook's convictions for child rape and child molestation. We
remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion, rather than dismissal.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
Feari~
i .s
1
WE CONCUR:
Siddoway, J.
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
j
33
State of Washington v. Roger William Flook, Jr.
Combined Opinion