State Of Washington v. James W.a. Gorman-lykken , 446 P.3d 694 ( 2019 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
August 13, 2019
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 51254-8-II
Respondent,
PUBLISHED OPINION
v.
JAMES WRENNE ANDREW GORMAN-
LYKKEN,
Appellant.
MAXA, C.J. – James Gorman-Lykken appeals his conviction of second degree rape. He
argues that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to having a corrections officer
stationed next to the witness stand while he testified.
We agree that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the corrections officer to be
stationed next to the testifying defendant without analyzing whether case-specific reasons
supported the need for that security measure. Accordingly, we reverse Gorman-Lykken’s
conviction and remand for further proceedings.1
FACTS
The State charged Gorman-Lykken with one count of second degree rape – domestic
violence. As charged, the State was required to prove that Gorman-Lykken engaged in sexual
intercourse with his girlfriend when she was incapable of consent. RCW 9A.44.050.
1
Gorman-Lykken also argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a
continuance, (2) an admitted error in the to-convict instruction requires reversal, (3) the
prosecutor engaged in misconduct, (4) cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial, and (5) the
criminal filing fee imposed on him at sentencing should be stricken. Because we reverse on
other grounds, we do not address these arguments.
No. 51254-8-II
At trial, Gorman-Lykken elected to testify. Before Gorman-Lykken testified, defense
counsel objected to the proximity of the corrections officer assigned to Gorman-Lykken while he
was on the witness stand. Defense counsel suggested that this procedure was the “usual
protocol.” 4 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 341. The trial court responded, “Let me just touch
base with the corrections officer.” 4 RP at 341. The officer stated that “If he’s up here, we’re up
here.” 4 RP at 342.
The trial court then observed that sometimes one to three corrections officers were
assigned to a defendant in court and that “[s]ometimes those individuals are large, larger than
average.” 4 RP at 342. By contrast, the court noted that the corrections officer assigned to
Gorman-Lykken was “not one of [our] largest corrections officers, and there’s only one of her.”
4 RP at 342. The court also stated that “the policy [of] the corrections staff is that . . . they are to
be in close proximity to somebody who is testifying that’s been accused of a crime.” 4 RP at
342.
The trial court’s only other discussion of the objection was as follows:
I don’t think it’s any surprise to the jurors that with the corrections officer what
she’s doing here, they’ve seen her throughout the trial. So with his repositioning
. . . to the witness stand - - I’m sensitive to the concern of - - the concern is I think
that, well, we have to have this officer nearby because this person is dangerous, this
person is going to run.
I mean, the jury could think many different things, and I think that’s the concern
that [defense counsel] in part is expressing by bringing the motion to change the
position of the corrections officer.
4 RP at 342-43. The court concluded, “I think on the whole I’m comfortable having the officer
stay where she’s at.” 4 RP at 343.
The jury found Gorman-Lykken guilty of second degree rape. Gorman-Lykken appeals
his conviction.
2
No. 51254-8-II
ANALYSIS
Gorman-Lykken argues that the trial court erred in allowing the corrections officer to be
stationed next to the witness stand during his testimony as a security measure. We agree.
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The trial court has broad discretion to make trial management decisions, including
“provisions for the order and security of the courtroom.” State v. Dye, 178 Wash. 2d 541, 547-48,
309 P.3d 1192 (2013). Therefore, we review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s ruling
regarding security measures. Id. at 548; see also State v. Jaime, 168 Wash. 2d 857, 865, 233 P.3d
554 (2010). And the abuse of discretion standard applies even if the challenged courtroom
procedure allegedly is prejudicial. Dye, 178 Wash. 2d at 548.
However, the trial court is required to actually exercise discretion in determining whether
a security measure is necessary. State v. Damon, 144 Wash. 2d 686, 692, 25 P.3d 418 (2001).
Therefore, an abuse of discretion exists if the trial court relies solely on the concerns of a
corrections officer in approving a security measure. Id.
Courts have specifically found reversible error where the trial court based its
decision solely on the judgment of correctional officers who believed that using
restraints during trial was necessary to maintain security, while no other justifiable
basis existed on the record.
State v. Finch, 137 Wash. 2d 792, 853, 975 P.2d 967 (1999).
B. LEGAL PRINCIPLES – COURTROOM SECURITY MEASURES
The presumption of innocence is a basic component of a fair trial under our criminal
justice system. Jaime, 168 Wash. 2d at 861. To preserve the presumption of innocence, the
defendant is “ ‘entitled to the physical indicia of innocence which includes the right of the
defendant to be brought before the court with the appearance, dignity, and self-respect of a free
and innocent [person].’ ” Id. at 861-62 (quoting Finch, 137 Wash. 2d at 844). Courtroom security
3
No. 51254-8-II
measures that single out defendants as particularly dangerous or guilty threaten their right to a
fair trial because those measures erode the presumption of innocence. Jaime, 168 Wash. 2d at 862.
Courts have recognized that certain courtroom security measures are inherently
prejudicial. Finch, 137 Wash. 2d at 845-46 (shackling, handcuffing, or other physical restraints;
gagging the defendant); Jaime, 168 Wash. 2d at 864 (holding a trial in a jail). Courts must closely
scrutinize such measures to ensure that they further essential state interests. Id. at 865.
Before allowing an inherently prejudicial security measure, the trial court must make a
factual determination that the measure is “ ‘necessary to prevent injury to those in the courtroom,
to prevent disorderly conduct at trial, or to prevent an escape.’ ” Finch, 137 Wash. 2d at 846
(quoting State v. Hartzog, 96 Wash. 2d 383, 398, 635 P.2d 694 (1981)). This determination must
be based on specific facts in the record that relate to the particular defendant. Jaime, 168 Wash. 2d
at 866. And inherently prejudicial security measures should be allowed only in “extraordinary
circumstances.” Finch, 137 Wash. 2d at 842. As a result, the court must consider less restrictive
alternatives. Id. at 850.
However, these rules apply only to security measures that are inherently prejudicial. No
Washington case has imposed a requirement that the trial court make specific findings of
necessity of the type mandated in Jaime, Finch, and Hartzog when a security measure is not
inherently prejudicial.
The routine use of security personnel in a courtroom during trial generally is not an
inherently prejudicial practice. Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568-69, 106 S. Ct. 1340, 89 L.
Ed. 2d 525 (1986). In Holbrook, the United States Supreme Court “counsel[ed] against a
presumption that any use of identifiable security guards in the courtroom is inherently
prejudicial.” Id. at 569. The Court noted that “the presence of guards at a defendant’s trial need
4
No. 51254-8-II
not be interpreted as a sign that he is particularly dangerous or culpable.” Id. “Our society has
become inured to the presence of armed guards in most public places; they are doubtless taken
for granted so long as their numbers or weaponry do not suggest particular official concern or
alarm.” Id.; see also Jaime, 168 Wash. 2d at 863 (quoting Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 569). As a result,
the Court held that the presence of four officers sitting in the front row of the spectator section
during trial was not inherently prejudicial. Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 570-72.
The Court acknowledged that under certain conditions, the presence of security officers
in the courtroom might convey the impression that the defendant is dangerous or untrustworthy.
Id. at 569. But the Court concluded, “In view of the variety of ways in which such guards can be
deployed, we believe that a case-by-case approach is more appropriate.” Id.; see also State v.
Butler, 198 Wash. App. 484, 494, 394 P.3d 424, review denied, 189 Wash. 2d 1004 (2017) (quoting
Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 569).
C. STATIONING A SECURITY OFFICER NEXT TO A TESTIFYING DEFENDANT
The question here is whether the trial court erred in allowing the corrections officer to be
stationed next to the witness stand during Gorman-Lykken’s testimony. We hold that the trial
court abused its discretion by failing to analyze whether any case-specific reasons other than the
officer’s preference supported the need for the security measure.
1. Not Inherently Prejudicial
Initially, we must determine whether stationing the corrections officer next to the witness
stand during Gorman-Lykken’s testimony was inherently prejudicial. See Jaime, 168 Wash. 2d at
862. The test is whether the security measure presented an unacceptable risk of impermissible
factors coming into play. Id. This test requires consideration of the “ ‘range of inferences that a
juror might reasonably draw’ ” from the measure. Id. (quoting Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 569). Our
5
No. 51254-8-II
consideration is based on “ ‘reason, principle, and common human experience.’ ” Butler, 198
Wash. App. at 493 (quoting Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 504, 96 S. Ct. 1691, 48 L. Ed. 2d
126 (1976)).
No published Washington case has considered whether stationing a corrections officer
next to the witness stand is inherently prejudicial. In Butler, the court held that the presence of a
second jail officer during the victim’s testimony was not inherently prejudicial, and instead was
innocuous. 198 Wash. App. at 494. But that case is not helpful because it involved a different
factual scenario. Therefore, we turn to cases from other jurisdictions.
The California Supreme Court held that an officer’s “presence at the witness stand during
a defendant’s testimony is not inherently prejudicial,” reasoning under Holbrook that “jurors
have become accustomed to seeing security officers in public places such as the courtroom . . .
and there is a wide range of inferences they may draw from an officer’s presence near a
testifying defendant.” People v. Stevens, 47 Cal. 4th 625, 638, 218 P.3d 272 (2009) (citing
Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 569). In Stevens, the court rejected the contention that this practice
impermissibly singled out the defendant: “Although [an officer’s] presence next to a testifying
defendant may be viewed as a defendant-focused practice when officers do not accompany other
witnesses to the stand, the Supreme Court has made it clear that not ‘every practice tending to
single out the accused from everyone else in the courtroom must be struck down.’ ” Id. (quoting
Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 567). The court concluded, “That a security practice seems to focus
attention on the defendant is not enough, without more, to render the practice inherently
prejudicial.” Id. at 638.
Courts in other jurisdictions also have held that the practice of an officer accompanying a
defendant to the witness stand was not inherently prejudicial. See People v. Peeples, 205 Ill. 2d
6
No. 51254-8-II
480, 500, 530, 793 N.E.2d 641 (2002) (holding the fact that a sheriff’s deputy escorted the
defendant to and from the witness stand and remained standing behind him during his testimony
was not inherently prejudicial); see also Wainwright v. Lockhart, 80 F.3d 1226, 1232 (8th Cir.
1996) (it was not inherently or actually prejudicial for a defendant in a capital case to be escorted
and guarded by two officers at the witness stand during the penalty phase of trial); United States
v. Williams, 897 F.2d 1430, 1434 (8th Cir. 1990) (defendant was not prejudiced by presence of a
uniformed United States Marshal standing next to him at the witness stand).
Here, the officer had been present throughout trial. There was only one officer, and she
did not do anything to draw attention to herself. Gorman-Lykken and the officer moved to and
from the witness box outside the presence of the jury. Therefore, we conclude that the officer’s
presence next to the witness stand while Gorman-Lykken testified was not inherently prejudicial.
2. Requirements for Not Inherently Prejudicial Security Measures
Finding that the security measure employed here was not inherently prejudicial does not
end our inquiry. Washington courts have emphasized that the trial court must actually exercise
discretion based on the facts of the case in considering whether to allow a courtroom security
measure. Damon, 144 Wash. 2d at 692; Finch, 137 Wash. 2d at 846; Hartzog, 96 Wash. 2d at 400. And
as noted above, simply deferring to the judgment of a corrections officer does not constitute the
exercise of discretion. See Damon, 144 Wash. 2d at 692; Finch, 137 Wash. 2d at 853.
No Washington case has discussed in detail the requirements of a trial court’s analysis
when considering a courtroom security measure that is not inherently prejudicial. For routine
security measures such as the presence of officers in the courtroom, no specific inquiry on the
record is required for the trial court’s exercise of discretion. See Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 566-67,
572 (rejecting the Court of Appeals’ requirement that the trial court expressly consider whether
7
No. 51254-8-II
the particular circumstances of the case supported the presence of multiple officers in the
courtroom); Butler, 198 Wash. App. at 494 (not requiring a case-specific analysis for the
“innocuous” presence of a second officer during the victim’s testimony).
However, we recognize that the potential for prejudice is greater when a security officer
is stationed next to a testifying defendant than when an officer or officers merely are present
elsewhere in the courtroom. The court in Holbrook even noted that jurors may not infer anything
negative about the presence of security officers “[i]f they are placed at some distance from the
accused.” Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 569. Because this security measure is not inherently
prejudicial, the court need not make the detailed findings required for inherently prejudicial
measures. But given this greater potential for prejudice, the trial court must undertake at least
some analysis in this scenario.
We again refer to California cases for guidance. In Stevens, the court concluded that
stationing an officer next to a testifying defendant was not inherently prejudicial but still required
that the trial court consider case-specific reasons for allowing the security measure. 47 Cal. 4th
at 638, 642.
The court may not defer decisionmaking authority to law enforcement officers, but
must exercise its own discretion to determine whether a given security measure is
appropriate on a case-by-case basis. . . .
The trial court should state its reasons for stationing a guard at or near the witness
stand and explain on the record why the need for this security measure outweighs
potential prejudice to the testifying defendant.
Id. at 642.
In People v. Hernandez, the California Supreme Court subsequently held based on Stevens
that the trial court abused its discretion where the trial judge “stationed the deputy at the witness
8
No. 51254-8-II
stand as a routine practice, and not based on case-specific considerations.” 51 Cal. 4th 733, 744,
247 P.3d 167 (2011). The court stated,
[T]he record demonstrates that the trial court’s decision to station a deputy at the
witness stand during defendant’s testimony was not based on a thoughtful, case-
specific consideration of the need for heightened security, or of the potential
prejudice that might result. . . . Despite a pointed request from defense counsel, the
court refused to make an individualized finding that defendant’s behavior
warranted this heightened security measure.
Id. at 743. Further, the trial court’s remarks showed that the court “was following a general
policy of stationing a courtroom officer at the witness stand during any criminal defendant’s
testimony, regardless of specific facts about the defendant or the nature of the alleged crime.”
Id.
We adopt the California approach. Before allowing a security officer to be stationed next
to the witness stand when the defendant testifies, the trial court must (1) state case-specific
reasons for the need for such a security measure, (2) determine that the need for the security
measure outweighs the potential prejudice to the testifying defendant. Stevens, 47 Cal. 4th at
642. And as required under Washington law, the trial court cannot rely solely on the security
officer’s preference. See Damon, 144 Wash. 2d at 692.
This approach is consistent with our Supreme Court’s discussion in Dye regarding a
different courtroom management issue – a witness’s use of a support animal while testifying.
See 178 Wash. 2d at 553. The court stated, “[W]e will not overrule the trial court’s exercise of
discretion unless the record fails to reveal the party’s reasons for needing a support animal or if
the record indicates that the trial court failed to consider those reasons.” Id.
This approach also is consistent with Holbrook, where the Court stated that a case-by-
case approach was appropriate for issues regarding the deployment of guards. 475 U.S. at 569.
9
No. 51254-8-II
3. Failure to Exercise Discretion
Here, the trial court did not identify any case-specific reason for allowing the corrections
officer to be stationed next to the witness stand when Gorman-Lykken testified. The court
identified the potential prejudice, stating that the officer’s presence would suggest that Gorman-
Lykken was dangerous and was going to run. And the court noted that there was only one
officer and that she was not very large. But the court never stated case-specific reasons why this
case or this defendant created the need for this security measure. The court simply stated, “I’m
comfortable having the officer stay where she’s at.” 4 RP at 343.
The only reason that appears in the record for having the corrections officer stationed by
the witness stand was the officer’s own preference and defense counsel’s reference to the “usual
protocol.” 4 RP at 341-42. Therefore, the record supports the conclusion that the trial court
simply deferred its decisionmaking authority and discretion to the corrections officer.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the corrections
officer to be stationed next to the witness stand when Gorman-Lykken testified.
4. Harmless Error
A claim that a security measure is unconstitutional is subject to a harmless error analysis.
State v. Clark, 143 Wash. 2d 731, 775, 24 P.3d 1006 (2001). The test is whether the error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt or whether the evidence of guilt is so overwhelming that a
jury could reach no rational conclusion other than guilt. Id. at 775-76. The question is whether
the security measure “had a substantial or injurious effect or influence” on the verdict. State v.
Hutchinson, 135 Wash. 2d 863, 888, 959 P.2d 1061 (1998).
Here, the State does not argue that any error was harmless. And there is no indication
that the State could show harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. Even though stationing an
10
No. 51254-8-II
officer next to the witness stand may not be inherently prejudicial, allowing that measure created
a risk that the jury might infer that Gorman-Lykken was dangerous or guilty. The State cannot
show beyond a reasonable doubt that stationing the officer next to the witness stand did not
influence the jury.
Further, the evidence of Gorman-Lykken’s guilt was not so overwhelming that a guilty
verdict was the only rational result. At trial, Gorman-Lykken’s girlfriend testified that she had
taken medication that essentially put her to sleep and that she had told Gorman-Lykken not to
have sex with her while she was asleep. But Gorman-Lykken testified that he asked his
girlfriend if she was up for sex, that she verbally agreed, and that she was coherent during the
sexual activity. Therefore, the jury was presented with conflicting evidence, not evidence that
overwhelmingly established Gorman-Lykken’s guilt.
We hold that the trial court’s error in allowing an officer to be stationed next to the
witness stand when Gorman-Lykken testified was not harmless.
CONCLUSION
We reverse Gorman-Lykken’s conviction and remand for further proceedings.
MAXA, C.J.
I concur:
SUTTON, J.
11
No. 51254-8-II
MELNICK, J. (concurrence) — The State alleged James Gorman-Lykken sexually assaulted
his girlfriend of five years, NK, while she slept. A jury found Gorman-Lykken guilty of rape in
the second degree—domestic violence.
I concur with the majority that the court committed error by allowing a corrections officer
to station herself next to the defendant while he testified. The court did not make an individualized
determination of necessity. Whether or not this error alone requires reversal, I agree with Gorman-
Lykken that cumulative error requires the reversal of his conviction. Additional errors included
an inaccurate “to convict” jury instruction, as well as several improper statements by the prosecutor
in closing arguments. I would reverse Gorman-Lykken’s conviction without deciding whether the
placement of the corrections officer alone requires reversal.
I. CUMULATIVE ERROR
Under the cumulative error doctrine, the defendant must show that the combined effect of
multiple errors requires a new trial. State v. Clark, 187 Wash. 2d 641, 649, 389 P.3d 462 (2017).
Cumulative error may warrant reversal, even if each error standing alone would otherwise be
considered harmless. State v. Greiff, 141 Wash. 2d 910, 929, 10 P.3d 390 (2000); State v. Weber,
159 Wash. 2d 252, 279, 149 P.3d 646 (2006). A “defendant may be entitled to a new trial when
cumulative errors produce a trial that is fundamentally unfair.” State v. Emery, 174 Wash. 2d 741,
766, 278 P.3d 653 (2012).
Although the majority concludes that the court’s error in allowing a corrections officer to
be stationed next to the defendant alone requires reversal, I believe that error is but one of
numerous errors whose cumulative effect produced a fundamentally unfair trial. In addition to the
error the majority relies on for reversal, other errors raised by Gorman-Lykken include a flawed
12
No. 51254-8-II
“to convict” instruction and several instances of improper statements by the prosecutor in closing
arguments.
II. JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Gorman-Lykken argues that the “to convict” instruction violated his due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the
Washington Constitution. He argues that the instruction relieved the State of its burden to prove
all the elements of second degree rape beyond a reasonable doubt, and instead allowed the jury to
convict him if the prosecutor proved either of the elements. I agree.
“[A] ‘to convict’ instruction must contain all of the elements of the crime because it serves
as a ‘yardstick’ by which the jury measures the evidence to determine guilt or innocence.” State
v. Smith, 131 Wash. 2d 258, 263, 930 P.2d 917 (1997). A jury instruction is erroneous if it relieves
the State of its burden to prove every element of a crime. State v. DeRyke, 149 Wash. 2d 906, 911-
12, 73 P.3d 1000 (2003). Reversal is required when an “omission or misstatement in a jury
instruction relieves the State of its burden” of proving every essential element of the crime. State
v. Brown, 147 Wash. 2d 330, 339, 58 P.3d 889 (2002). A reviewing court may not rely on other
instructions to supply an element missing from the ‘to convict’ instruction. DeRyke, 149 Wash. 2d
at 910; State v. Nelson, 191 Wash. 2d 61, 74, 419 P.3d 410 (2018).
At trial, the court instructed the jury on the elements of the crime. Neither party objected
to or took exception to the court’s “to convict” instruction which stated,
To convict the defendant of the crime of Rape in the Second Degree, each of the
following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about July 5, 2017, the defendant engaged in sexual
intercourse with [NK];
(2) That the sexual intercourse occurred when [NK] was incapable of
consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated; and;
(3) That the acts occurred in the State of Washington.
13
No. 51254-8-II
If you find from the evidence that either (1), (2), and (3), has been proved
beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty.
On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a
reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return
a verdict of not guilty.
Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 29 (emphasis added).
This instruction contained a clear error. It stated that if the jury found “that either
[elements] (1), (2), and (3), has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt,” the jury should return a
guilty verdict. CP at 29 (emphasis added). It should have stated that in order to return a guilty
verdict, the jury had to find all three elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
This instruction relieved the State of its burden to prove every element of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt. Although it listed all of the elements of the crime, it did not require the jury
to find all of the elements to return a guilty verdict. This error, together with the other errors
discussed by the majority and below, demonstrate that Gorman-Lykken did not receive a fair trial.
III. IMPROPER PROSECUTORIAL ARGUMENT
Gorman-Lykken argues that prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial because
the prosecutor’s closing argument and rebuttal improperly impugned defense counsel, misstated
the defense theory, and misstated the law.2
To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show that the
prosecutor’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial. In re Pers. Restraint of Glasmann, 175
2
Gorman-Lykken also argues that the prosecutor improperly expressed a personal opinion that
Gorman-Lykken lied during his testimony and improperly commented that the victim was “on
trial.” Br. of Appellant at 40. I do not suggest a resolution on these issues because the other
improper arguments made by the prosecutor, along with the other errors in this case, amount to
cumulative error necessitating reversal. Cf. State v. Copeland, 130 Wash. 2d 244, 922 P.2d 1304
(1996) with State v. Reed, 102 Wash. 2d 140, 684 P.2d 699 (1984).
14
No. 51254-8-II
Wn.2d 696, 704, 286 P.3d 673 (2012).3 In assessing whether a prosecutor’s closing argument was
improper, this court recognizes that the prosecutor has “wide latitude to argue reasonable
inferences from the evidence, including evidence respecting the credibility of witnesses.” State v.
Thorgerson, 172 Wash. 2d 438, 448, 258 P.3d 43 (2011). Where the “cumulative effect of repetitive
prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct” is “so flagrant that no instruction or series of instructions
can erase their combined prejudicial effect,” we must reverse. State v. Walker, 164 Wash. App. 724,
737, 265 P.3d 191 (2011).
It is improper for a prosecutor to impugn opposing counsel’s role or integrity. State v.
Lindsay, 180 Wash. 2d 423, 431-32, 326 P.3d 125 (2014). Prosecutorial statements that malign
defense counsel are impermissible because they can damage a defendant’s opportunity to present
his or her case. Lindsay, 180 Wash. 2d at 432. But comments that “can fairly be said to focus on the
evidence” do not constitute misconduct. Thorgerson, 172 Wash. 2d at 451.
In addition, improper remarks made in rebuttal are not reversible error “‘if they were
invited or provoked by defense counsel and are in reply to his or her acts and statements.’” State
v. Thierry, 190 Wash. App. 680, 690, 360 P.3d 940 (2015) (quoting State v. Russell, 125 Wash. 2d 24,
86, 882 P.2d 747 (1994)).
3
Because I suggest reversal based on cumulative error, I need only decide that the prosecutor’s
argument was improper. Because Gorman-Lykken did not object to the prosecutor’s comments,
the normal test would be to determine if the argument was “so flagrant and ill intentioned that an
instruction could not have cured the resulting prejudice.” Emery, 174 Wash. 2d 760-61. The
defendant would then have to show that no curative instruction would have eliminated the
prejudicial effect, and the misconduct resulted in prejudice that had a substantial likelihood of
affecting the verdict. Emery, 174 Wash. 2d at 761. However, “the cumulative effect of repetitive
prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct may be so flagrant that no instruction or series of instructions
can erase their combined prejudicial effect.” State v. Walker, 164 Wash. App. 724, 737, 265 P.3d
191 (2011). Accordingly, rather than consider whether each improper comment was flagrant or
ill-intentioned, I consider the cumulative effect of all the prosecutor’s improper statements
together, along with the other errors.
15
No. 51254-8-II
A. Impugning Defense Counsel
Gorman-Lykken contends the prosecutor improperly argued the defense attorney lied in
closing arguments.
Defense counsel stated during closing argument that
Obviously, he’s [NK’s] brother, and so there is that relationship between them that
siblings all have. They’re going to stick up for one another. [Her brother] never
came forward to law enforcement, whether police officers or anyone on the
prosecution team until the day before trial. That’s significant. If he had something
to say in this regard, wouldn’t it make sense that he would have reached out to law
enforcement including the prosecution team sooner than the day before trial?
Report of Proceedings (RP) (Sept. 15, 2017) at 427-28.
The prosecutor then stated during rebuttal:
[D]efense counsel makes this inaccurate statement that the day before trial [NK’s
brother] was contacted or came forward. It’s not true. [He] was contacted and
came forward much earlier than the day before yesterday. That’s an inaccuracy.
That’s plain false. That came out in testimony. It’s plain false. It’s as false as the
accusations or testimony that the defendant gave.[4]
RP (Sept. 15, 2017) at 440.
A prosecutor is entitled to fairly respond to defense’s counsel’s arguments and criticisms
of the State’s case. Thorgerson, 172 Wash. 2d at 450. But the prosecutor was incorrect that defense
counsel’s statement about when the brother came forward was false. NK’s brother testified on
cross-examination that the first time he had spoken to law enforcement or the prosecution was
“[j]ust recently.” RP (Sept. 14, 2017) at 238. On re-cross-examination, he affirmatively stated
that the first time he had “mentioned anything about this [case] to anyone connected with law
enforcement was two days ago.” RP (Sept. 15, 2017) at 386. The prosecutor improperly argued
that Gorman-Lykken’s lawyer made a false statement.
4
This statement is different from the one where the prosecutor argued that Gorman-Lykken lied.
16
No. 51254-8-II
B. Misstating Defense Theory in Rebuttal
Gorman-Lykken also argues that, during rebuttal, the prosecutor mischaracterized his
defense theory.
Defense counsel explained in closing that if Gorman-Lykken established by a
preponderance of the evidence that he reasonably believed NK was not mentally incapacitated or
physically helpless, then the jury could find him not guilty. Defense counsel then made several
arguments casting doubt on NK’s credibility. Defense counsel also argued that because NK’s
blood test results were not admitted at trial, the jury should have questions about what sort of
substances a pharmacologist might have found in her blood, and what effect a stimulant like
Adderall would have in tandem with depressants.
Defense counsel also reminded the jury that Gorman-Lykken testified “about abuse of
Oxycodone and abuse of Adderall by both he and [NK] and the history that they had of doing that.
Shattering pills and snorting them to get a quick hit . . . [the prosecutor] could have called [NK] to
the witness stand to rebut that. He didn’t do it.” RP (Sept. 15, 2017) at 434. And defense counsel
argued,
If you’re looking at a trend, a habit of drug abuse involving those two drugs,
Oxycodone and Adderall, in other words, an opioid and a central nervous system
stimulant, all bets are off . . . about what that really is going to mean in someone’s
brain, and that has everything to do with how somebody might be if they have taken
a whole cocktail of drugs like Oxycodone, Gabapentin, and alcohol, but at the same
time they’re under the influence of an amphetamine-type stimulant.
RP (Sept. 15, 2017) at 435.
The prosecutor responded in rebuttal, “According to the defendant—and his theory is
basically this—that drug addicts can’t be raped, and that’s not true and that’s not fair.” RP (Sept.
15, 2017) at 443.
17
No. 51254-8-II
It is improper for a prosecutor to “misrepresent[ ] defense counsel’s argument in rebuttal,
effectively creating a straw man easily destroyed in the minds of the jury.” Thierry, 190 Wash. App.
at 694. But a prosecutor is entitled to fairly respond to defense’s counsel’s arguments and
criticisms of the State’s case. Thorgerson, 172 Wash. 2d at 450.
Here, the prosecutor mischaracterized defense counsel’s argument. Defense counsel’s
comments cannot fairly be interpreted as arguing that NK could not be raped because she was a
drug addict. His statements about drug use were in the context of his argument that there were
reasonable doubts regarding NK’s mental incapacity and physical helplessness. He emphasized
that there was “uncertainty about exactly what [NK’s] mental state was.” RP (Sept. 15, 2017) at
434. Defense counsel’s argument was that nobody knew whether the combination of drugs that
NK had taken would affect her ability to give consent to sex.
The court erred by failing to consider the prejudicial effect of the uniformed guard standing
next to the Gorman-Lykken while he testified. The court erred by instructing the jury with an
incorrect “to convict” jury instruction. The prosecutor made numerous improper comments in
closing arguments. Because the cumulative errors in this trial produced a fundamentally unfair
trial, I would reverse the conviction on that basis.
Melnick, J.
18