State of Washington v. Ernest Glasgow Barela, Jr., 32968-2

Background

Victim E.B. alleged repeated sexual abuse by her father, Ernest Barela, from about age 6–12; last incident April 9, 2012. Jury convicted Barela of first degree child molestation, two counts of second degree child molestation, and second degree incest; acquitted on other counts.
E.B. disclosed the abuse to a youth leader (Sydney Mutch) at church, then to her mother; mother confronted Barela, who said he had been "inappropriate" but "there was no sex." Police interviewed E.B.; Detective Janis (special assault unit) testified at trial.
Defense sought in limine to limit voir dire on delayed reporting and to exclude expert/official testimony about delayed disclosure; court allowed limited inquiry and some testimony by Detective Janis and other experts.
During voir dire, a venire member with counseling experience discussed delayed disclosure; defense did not object at trial to most voir dire remarks and did not make offers of proof when certain cross-examination topics were excluded.
Defense renewed objections post-trial via a motion for a new trial raising juror taint, exclusion of evidence about the mother’s alleged affair, prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal, admission of Detective Janis’s delayed-reporting testimony, and admission of Mutch’s testimony under the "hue and cry" doctrine. Trial court denied the motion; appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Barela)	Held
Voir dire comments about delayed reporting tainted venire	Questions were proper to identify juror receptivity to delayed disclosure	Venire statements (esp. a counselor juror) prejudiced jury pool and denied impartial jury	Waived or harmless; failure to contemporaneously object forfeited claim; no reversible prejudice
Exclusion of cross-exam evidence about mother's infidelity	Exclusion proper under rules; defense failed to make ER 103(a)(2) offer of proof	Exclusion prevented impeachment of mother's credibility	Not preserved at trial; new-trial claim not within CrR 7.5 grounds; no relief
Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal (opinion, impugn counsel, burden shift)	Closing argument stayed within permissible inference and rebuttal; not flagrant	Rebuttal included vouching, attacking defense counsel, and misstating reasonable-doubt standard	Comments largely permissible or not so flagrant; one remark sustained when objected but no reversal warranted
Admission of Detective Janis’s testimony on delayed disclosure	Testimony was permissible expert/context testimony to explain delayed reporting and corroborate victim	Testimony vouched for victim, invaded jury credibility function, and bore undue weight as officer testimony	Admission was within trial court discretion; not improper vouching, or harmless because defense expert agreed
Admission of Mutch’s testimony under "hue and cry"	Testimony bolstered victimal credibility; allowed as fact-of-complaint evidence	Mutch’s testimony was untimely and not a contemporaneous complaint; inadmissible under hue-and-cry exception	Admission was erroneous (E.B.’s disclosure was not a timely complaint) but harmless given E.B.’s own testimony and mother’s testimony
Cumulative error	No cumulative prejudice from multiple errors	Combination of errors deprived fairness, requiring reversal	No cumulative error: only one preserved error which was harmless

Key Cases Cited

Finch v. State, 137 Wn.2d 792 (preservation of in limine objections depends on trial court's ruling) (Wash.)
Powell v. State, 126 Wn.2d 244 (trial court statements can require contemporaneous objections to preserve issues) (Wash.)
Lindsay v. State, 180 Wn.2d 423 (standard for prosecutorial misconduct; preserved vs. unpreserved error) (Wash.)
Thorgerson v. State, 172 Wn.2d 438 (prosecutorial remarks on burden of proof and counsel) (Wash.)
Glasmann v. State, 175 Wn.2d 696 (flagrant and ill-intentioned standard for burden-shifting misconduct) (Wash.)
Kirkman v. State, 159 Wn.2d 918 (expert testimony may address issues that jury must decide; not automatically excluded) (Wash.)
Petrich v. State, 101 Wn.2d 566 (expert testimony corroborating delayed reporting may be admissible) (Wash.)
Alexander v. State, 64 Wn. App. 147 (limits on experts opining on witness truthfulness) (Wash. Ct. App.)
Chenoweth v. State, 188 Wn. App. 521 (timeliness requirement for hue-and-cry/fact-of-complaint evidence) (Wash. Ct. App.)
Neal v. State, 144 Wn.2d 600 (harmless-error analysis for evidentiary errors) (Wash.)
Greifelt v. State, 141 Wn.2d 910 (cumulative error doctrine) (Wash.)