State Of Washington v. Mark Shewmaker, 74925-1

Mark Shewmaker (pro se at trial) was convicted of two counts of first-degree child molestation based on testimony by his minor daughter NS about abuses in 2011; sentenced to 80 months.
The State also presented testimony from AK, Shewmaker's adult daughter from a prior marriage, alleging similar historic sexual abuse (investigated in 2002).
Shewmaker had a prior mistrial; in the second trial he represented himself without standby counsel.
An appointed public defender investigator was authorized ~50 hours; Shewmaker alleges the investigator refused to interview witnesses and told a witness (Robin) to lie about availability.
The trial court allowed prior-act evidence (AK’s molestation claims and other abuse allegations) after finding Shewmaker had opened the door and, alternatively, that ER 404(b) requirements were satisfied.
Shewmaker raised claims of ineffective assistance of appointed resources, evidentiary error on prior acts, and prosecutorial misconduct on appeal; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Shewmaker's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether investigator’s deficient performance deprived Shewmaker of meaningful self-representation	Investigator refused to interview witnesses and told Robin to lie, impairing defense preparation	Any investigator problems did not prejudice Shewmaker; court afforded practical remedies (e.g., Skype testimony); no structural error	No reversible error; Shewmaker failed to show prejudice under Silva/Strickland standards
Admission of AK’s prior molestation testimony under ER 404(b) (common scheme)	Prior-act evidence was unduly prejudicial and improperly admitted	AK’s testimony proved by preponderance, was substantially similar and probative for common scheme; probative value outweighed prejudice	No abuse of discretion; admission proper under ER 404(b)
Admission of other prior-bad-acts (physical abuse, oral sex, abuse of son/dog)	Such evidence was unfairly prejudicial	Shewmaker opened the door by raising these topics in opening and requests; evidence admissible to explain/clarify	No error — defendant opened the door and/or evidence admissible
Prosecutorial misconduct (voir dire, eliciting victimization testimony, rebuttal questioning)	Prosecutor’s questions/comments were improper and incurable	No flagrant, incurable misconduct; any prejudice could have been cured by timely objections/instructions	Waived by failure to object; not flagrant; no reversible misconduct

State v. Silva, 107 Wn. App. 605 (2001) (pretrial detainee self-representation may require reasonable access to state-provided resources; prejudice required)
State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11 (2003) (ER 404(b) analysis and admissibility of prior sexual-misconduct evidence)
State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727 (2009) (prosecutorial-misconduct waiver when no contemporaneous objection unless misconduct is flagrant and incurable)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (structural error doctrine is narrowly confined)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance standard; prejudice required)
State v. Weber, 159 Wn.2d 252 (2007) (cumulative error doctrine does not apply where errors are few and harmless)