State of Washington v. Angela Elizabeth Vargas aka Mendoza, 34374-0

Background

Angela Elizabeth Mendoza was convicted of first‑degree trafficking in stolen property and appealed.
At closing, the prosecutor told the jury: “That presumption remains here until you go to the jury room and deliberate on the case.”
Defense counsel did not object at trial to the prosecutor’s statement.
Mendoza argued on appeal that the remark misstated the law on the presumption of innocence and thus warranted reversal for prosecutorial misconduct or, alternatively, that counsel was ineffective for failing to object.
The Court of Appeals found the prosecutor’s remark to be a misstatement (the presumption continues throughout trial and may only be overcome during deliberations) but declined to reverse the conviction.
The court held the remark was an isolated, correctable misstatement unlikely to have prejudiced the jury given proper instructions; Mendoza also failed to show prejudice for an ineffective‑assistance claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mendoza)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether prosecutor’s closing misstatement about the presumption of innocence constitutes reversible prosecutorial misconduct when no objection was made	The prosecutor misstated the law by implying the presumption ends when deliberations begin, which undermines due process and requires reversal	The remark was not intended to diminish the presumption; any slip was harmless and correctable	Court: Misstatement was error but an isolated, non‑flagrant remark; no reversal absent timely objection because prejudice was not shown
Whether defense counsel’s failure to object rendered assistance ineffective	Counsel’s failure prejudiced Mendoza because the improper statement undermined the presumption of innocence	Failure to object did not cause prejudice because the comment was fleeting, unreinforced, and jury instructions cured any error	Court: Ineffective‑assistance claim fails for lack of prejudice
Standard for review when no objection made	Mendoza urges protection of constitutional right despite lack of objection	State relies on waiver doctrine unless misconduct is flagrant and incurable by instruction	Court applies waiver rule: must show misstatement so flagrant and incurable that no instruction could have cured prejudice; Mendoza did not meet this burden
Whether a single, isolated misstatement about presumption of innocence is per se flagrant or incurable	Mendoza argues any erosion of presumption is inherently prejudicial	State argues single isolated comment is curable and not necessarily prejudicial	Court: Not per se flagrant; context, frequency, and jury instructions matter — single misstatement here was not reversible error

Key Cases Cited

State v. Venegas, 155 Wn. App. 507 (2010) (presumption of innocence continues throughout trial; improper comments can erode it)
State v. Evans, 163 Wn. App. 635 (2011) (prosecutor’s comment that presumption “stops” at deliberations found misconduct; cumulative error can require reversal)
State v. Reed, 168 Wn. App. 553 (2012) (similar misstatement was error but isolated remark may be cured by instruction)
State v. Warren, 165 Wn.2d 17 (2008) (demeaning presumption of innocence is grievous misconduct; court protective of presumption)
State v. Fleming, 83 Wn. App. 209 (1996) (prosecutor misstatements about burden and jury role found improper and prejudicial)
State v. Johnson, 158 Wn. App. 677 (2010) (misstatements undermining presumption may be flagrant and incurable despite correct instructions)
State v. Walker, 182 Wn.2d 463 (2015) (egregious, prejudicial misconduct shown by presentation that could not be cured by instruction; court reversed despite lack of objection)