State Of Washington, V. Derrick Keith Burgess, 59167-7

In October 2020, then-30-year-old Derrick Burgess allegedly had sexual contact with his 14-year-old stepsister R.B.; he was charged with three counts of third-degree rape of a child and convicted by a jury.
R.B. had two juvenile convictions from Spring 2020 for taking motor vehicles (one unsealed in April, one sealed in May with a codefendant).
The State moved in limine to exclude both juvenile convictions under ER 609(d); the trial court excluded the sealed conviction as sealed and excluded the unsealed conviction as not "necessary" for a fair determination of guilt.
Burgess argued exclusion violated his right to present a defense because his theory depended on impeaching R.B.'s credibility; he also argued the prosecutor improperly bolstered R.B. in rebuttal closing.
The prosecutor, without contemporaneous objection from Burgess, argued in rebuttal that R.B. was credible and truthful and cited trial testimony supporting that inference. The jury convicted Burgess on all counts.
On appeal the court applied the two-step analysis (review for evidentiary error; then de novo constitutional Hudlow balancing) and affirmed: exclusion of juvenile convictions did not violate the right to present a defense, and the prosecutor's remarks were permissible argument supported by evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Burgess)	Held
Exclusion of juvenile convictions under ER 609(d)	Juvenile convictions are presumptively inadmissible; exclusion was proper because convictions were prejudicial and not necessary for a fair determination	The juvenile convictions (one sealed, one unsealed) were necessary to impeach R.B.; timing and involvement of witnesses made them highly probative — exclusion violated right to present a defense	Trial court did not abuse discretion as to unsealed conviction; error on sealing being dispositive was acknowledged but harmless; exclusion did not violate constitutional right under Hudlow balancing
Prosecutor's closing argument (alleged bolstering)	Rebuttal statements arguing R.B. was truthful were reasonable inferences from evidence and not personal, improper bolstering	Prosecutor improperly vouched for R.B. ("I submit... is the truth/credible"), which was prejudicial and incurable because case turned on her testimony	Statements were not clear personal opinions, were supported by trial evidence, and fell within permissible latitude for argument; no prosecutorial misconduct found

Jones v. State, 168 Wn.2d 713 (2010) (describing constitutional right to present a defense and its limits)
Jennings v. State, 199 Wn.2d 53 (2022) (two-step evidentiary/constitutional analysis and Hudlow balancing)
Arndt v. State, 194 Wn.2d 784 (2020) (evidence of extremely high probative value cannot generally be excluded)
Thorgerson v. State, 172 Wn.2d 438 (2011) (prosecutor allowed wide latitude to argue credibility if supported by evidence)
Barr v. Snohomish County Sheriff, 193 Wn.2d 330 (2019) (sealed convictions are hidden from public view but not erased)
Brett v. State, 126 Wn.2d 136 (1994) (clear and unmistakable statements of personal belief by a prosecutor are prejudicial)
Gerard v. State, 36 Wn. App. 7 (1983) (burden on proponent to show juvenile conviction is necessary to determine guilt)
Warren v. State, 165 Wn.2d 17 (2008) (failure to object to prosecutorial statements waives claim unless statements are incurable)