State Of Washington, V Elmer Apaez-Medina, 48259-2

Defendant Elmer Apaez‑Medina and victim Donna Homan were intimate partners living together; an early‑morning June 21, 2015, altercation left Homan with a broken nose and other bruises.
Homan testified at trial that she was telling the truth although confused about sequence and that she still loved Apaez‑Medina; she had been under the influence at the time of the incident.
Homan acknowledged writing a post‑incident letter saying she thought Apaez‑Medina should not be convicted; the letter itself was not admitted into evidence but its existence and general contents were elicited on cross‑examination.
The State charged Apaez‑Medina with second‑degree assault and a domestic‑violence special verdict was returned after a jury found him guilty.
On appeal Apaez‑Medina argued prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal closing: (1) prosecutor said Homan “told the truth,” (2) prosecutor called the defense argument “ridiculous,” and (3) prosecutor began reading from Homan’s unadmitted letter; he also argued cumulative error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Apaez‑Medina)	Held
Prosecutor vouching for witness credibility	Comments were reasonable inferences from Homan’s testimony that she was telling the truth despite loving the defendant	Statements impermissibly vouched for witness and expressed prosecutor’s personal belief	Not misconduct: prosecutor’s comment was an inference from Homan’s own testimony, so allowed
Prosecutor calling defense argument “ridiculous”	Characterization was fair reply to defense attack on victim’s memory	Term equates to prosecutor expressing belief in defendant’s guilt (improper opinion)	Even if improper, no prejudice: objection sustained and court instructed jury to disregard; jurors presumed to follow instruction
Reading from unadmitted letter	Reading only showed letter existed; its existence and general contents already in evidence	Reading a document not admitted is referencing facts outside evidence (improper)	Even if improper, no prejudice: only a brief excerpt, testimony had already established existence/contents, court sustained objection and instructed jury to disregard
Cumulative error	Individual comments were not improper or prejudicial; combined effect minimal	Multiple improper comments together likely affected verdict	No cumulative error: comments were not significantly prejudicial and curative instructions cured any harm

Thorgerson v. State, 172 Wn.2d 438 (prosecutorial misconduct requires improper and prejudicial conduct)
Glasmann v. State, 175 Wn.2d 696 (prosecutor allowed reasonable inference in argument; improper to reference facts not in evidence)
Allen v. State, 182 Wn.2d 364 (prejudice requires substantial likelihood of affecting verdict)
Emery v. State, 174 Wn.2d 741 (waiver by failure to object unless misconduct is so flagrant curative instruction cannot cure; jurors presumed to follow instructions)
McKenzie v. State, 157 Wn.2d 44 (distinguish permissible argument from improper personal opinion/vouching)
Robinson v. State, 189 Wn. App. 877 (improper vouching occurs when prosecutor places government prestige behind witness)
Walker v. State, 164 Wn. App. 724 (cumulative error doctrine)
Cox v. State, 109 Wn. App. 937 (failure to brief an appellate issue results in waiver)