State Of Washington, Resp v. Sean M. Curran, App, 73590-0

On March 26–27, 2014, Sean Curran, Shelby Ostergard, and Viktoriya Tarasenko smoked methamphetamine; an altercation followed in which Curran broke Ostergard’s car mirror with a bat, and Ostergard and Tarasenko accused Curran of slapping and threatening to kill Ostergard and following them while brandishing a gun.
Curran admitted breaking the mirror but denied slapping or threatening and denied chasing them; he later went to Ostergard’s home to apologize and was arrested.
The State charged Curran with felony harassment, fourth-degree assault, and third-degree malicious mischief; the jury convicted on harassment and malicious mischief, deadlocked on assault (later dismissed with prejudice).
Pretrial, the State successfully moved to exclude Curran’s proposed testimony that Ostergard had plans to engage in bank fraud and to arrange prostitution for herself and Tarasenko; the court sustained objections to related testimony during Curran’s testimony.
Curran appealed, arguing the exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense (showing witnesses’ motive to fabricate), and sought waiver of appellate costs based on indigency.

Issue	State's Argument	Curran's Argument	Held
Admissibility of testimony that witnesses planned to prostitute themselves	Evidence irrelevant to motive to fabricate and highly prejudicial (ER 403)	Evidence showed witnesses had motive to fabricate and explained Curran’s conduct	Exclusion was within trial court’s discretion; evidence not sufficiently relevant and would be unfairly prejudicial
Whether exclusion prevented Curran from presenting defense / showing witness fabrication motive	Curran could attack credibility by other means (e.g., drug use); excluded evidence did not tend to show motive to lie	Exclusion denied his right to present a defense by removing evidence of motive to fabricate	No Sixth Amendment violation; exclusion did not significantly undermine a fundamental element of defense
ER 401/403 balancing (probative vs. prejudicial effect of prostitution evidence)	Little probative value on fabrication; high risk of character-smearing	Probative value justified given explanation of Curran’s actions and witness bias	Court reasonably excluded the evidence as prejudicial and minimally probative
Waiver of appellate costs (indigency)	Record lacks proof Curran cannot now or in future pay costs; trial court’s ex parte indigency finding insufficient	Trial court previously found indigency and waived costs; appellate costs should be waived	Denied waiver: record does not show current or permanent inability to pay appellate costs

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (Sixth Amendment guarantees right to present witnesses in defendant's favor)
State v. Darden, 145 Wn.2d 612 (2002) (relevance and ER 403 balancing in criminal trials)
State v. Donald, 178 Wn. App. 250 (2013) (trial court may exclude evidence with limited probative value when defendant can present defense through other means)
State v. Gallegos, 65 Wn. App. 230 (1992) (exclude cross-examination that risks improperly smearing victim when it has little probative value on fabrication)
State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (2016) (appellate costs and consideration of ability to pay; factors for indigency determinations)
State v. Atsbeha, 142 Wn.2d 904 (2001) (appellate standard: trial courts have broad latitude to exclude evidence)