State Of Washington, Resp. v. Marcel Sampson, App., 73805-4

Background

Marcel Cedran Sampson was tried and convicted by a jury of three counts of first‑degree child molestation based on allegations from multiple children (L.R., L.H., and P.W.). He was later sentenced to life as a persistent offender.
The case arose from discovery of a video on Sampson’s phone (P.W. identified), and subsequent reports by relatives and school personnel that led to police interviews of the children and their mother (Thornton) and other witnesses (Tucker).
Sampson had a prior conviction history; some prior convictions were previously invalidated on appeal in an earlier trial but his retrial resulted in convictions on three molestation counts and acquittals on two communication counts.
At trial the defense sought to call Dr. John Yuille (memory/interview expert) to critique the children’s statements; the court excluded the expert as invading the jury’s role in assessing credibility.
The trial admitted video-recorded child interviews and testimony from Detective Stangeland recounting statements by Thornton; the State later conceded some out‑of‑court statements were admitted in error but argued the errors were harmless.
Sampson moved unsuccessfully to compel two witnesses (an out‑of‑state child N.P. and a victim advocate) and objected when the jury requested replay of the child‑interview videos during deliberations.

Issues

Issue	Sampson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Exclusion of expert testimony (Dr. Yuille)	Expert would assist jury on reliability/contamination of child memories and statement analysis	Testimony invaded jury province; issues (inconsistency, collusion) are within lay understanding	Court affirmed exclusion as non‑abuse of discretion; expert impermissibly opined on credibility
Admissibility of child hearsay (statements about acts on other children)	Admission of out‑of‑court statements describing acts on other children violated RCW 9A.44.120	Some such statements were erroneously admitted but were duplicative of in‑court testimony; harmless error	Error acknowledged but harmless because children repeated same substance at trial
Hearsay via detective recounting Thornton’s statements (consciousness of guilt)	Admission of Thornton’s statements through Detective Stangeland was hearsay and prejudicial	State conceded error but argued other strong evidence of consciousness of guilt (Sampson’s admissions, attempts to pay, laptop disposal)	Error was harmless given other evidence of consciousness of guilt
Compulsory process — N.P. (out‑of‑state witness)	N.P.’s inconsistent prior statements were material to impeach and show fabrication	Defense failed to lay specific foundation or provide affidavit showing material testimony; Tucker testified about motive	Court did not abuse discretion in denying subpoena absent adequate proffer of materiality
Compulsory process — victim advocate	Advocate could explain an allegedly exculpatory email indicating a recantation by L.R.1998	Advocate barred by statute from testifying to communications with victim; detective already testified to email contents; limited probative value	Denial of subpoena not an abuse of discretion
Replay of child interview videos during deliberations	Replay risked undue emphasis and prejudice under Koontz; defense objected	Videos were admitted exhibits (not trial testimony), played once without juror discussion, court imposed safeguards	Replay was within discretion and not an abuse given safeguards and differences from Koontz
Cumulative error	Combined evidentiary and procedural errors deprived Sampson of a fair trial	Errors were isolated and harmless; overwhelming or independent evidence supported verdicts	No cumulative error; convictions affirmed
Equal protection — persistent offender life sentence	Sentence based on prior convictions as sentencing factors violated equal protection; strict scrutiny required	Persistent‑offender classification satisfies rational basis; prior Washington precedent upholds it	Rejected; persistent‑offender sentence does not violate equal protection
Costs on appeal	Sampson indigent; request to waive costs	State withdrew opposition at oral argument	Costs on appeal waived due to indigency

Key Cases Cited

State v. Willis, 151 Wn.2d 255 (expert testimony admissibility standards under ER 702)
State v. Allen, 176 Wn.2d 611 (discussion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification)
State v. King, 131 Wn. App. 789 (expert may not opine on witness credibility)
State v. Koontz, 145 Wn.2d 650 (protections against undue emphasis when replaying videotaped testimony)
State v. Langstead, 155 Wn. App. 448 (rational basis review upheld for persistent‑offender sentencing)
State v. Witherspoon, 171 Wn. App. 271 (discussing rational basis for distinguishing persistent offenders)
State v. Grieff, 141 Wn.2d 910 (standard for reversal based on cumulative error)