State Of Washington v. Nicholas Sterling Little, 73699-0

Background

Nicholas Little was convicted by a jury on six counts of first-degree child molestation involving three children (ages 8 and 10 at trial). The convictions followed interviews by CPS, police, a child interview specialist, and examinations by forensic nurses.
Defense sought to admit "other suspect" evidence implicating the victims' maternal grandfather (and argued witness H.B. once used the name "Doug"). The State moved in limine to exclude that evidence.
The trial court admitted various out-of-court statements by the children under Washington's child-hearsay statute after conducting a Ryan-factor reliability analysis and also admitted statements to a second forensic nurse under the medical-diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception.
After conviction, Little moved for a new trial and an evidentiary hearing, alleging trial counsel prevented him from testifying (citing alcohol odor and counsel's alleged refusal). The court denied the hearing and the new-trial motion based on the record and counsel declarations.
Little claimed prosecutorial misconduct in closing (impugning defense counsel; commenting on defendant's failure to testify). The court rejected those claims. Appellate costs were denied against Little due to indigency.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Little)	Held
Exclusion of other-suspect evidence	Exclusion proper because proffered facts do not create a nonspeculative link to another suspect	Maternal grandfather (and ambiguity from H.B.'s references to "Doug") should be admitted as alternative perpetrator evidence	Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence showed only opportunity, not motive or a nonspeculative link — exclusion upheld
Admissibility of child hearsay (Ryan factors)	Children's statements to mother, friend, officer, and interviewer were reliable under Ryan factors (timing, spontaneity, relationships)	Statements lacked reliability (motive to lie, spontaneity, timing, surrounding circumstances)	Court properly applied Ryan factors and did not abuse discretion admitting challenged statements
Medical-diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception (ER 803(a)(4))	Statements to second forensic nurse were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment (continuation of exam; children understood checkup purpose)	Nurse's exam was primarily forensic; no treatment motive; children did not seek care so statements not admissible under exception	Admission was proper: children demonstrated treatment motive and nurse reasonably relied on statements; exception applied
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (impugning counsel; comment on defendant silence)	Argument was a permissible response to defense; remark that only defendant and victim knew what happened did not single out silence	Prosecutor disparaged defense and impermissibly commented on Little's failure to testify	No misconduct: single "cagey" remark was fair reply; prosecutor's statement did not naturally and necessarily refer to defendant's silence
Motion for new trial / evidentiary hearing on right to testify	Record (trial colloquy, counsel declarations, defendant jail calls) does not show counsel refused or coerced; defendant presumed to have waived on counsel's advice	Counsel prevented him from testifying (told him "I cannot put you on"), and defendant demanded to testify; calls corroborate desire	Denial affirmed: defendant failed to show specific, credible facts that counsel refused his unequivocal demand; no abuse of discretion denying hearing or new trial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Franklin, 180 Wn.2d 371 (discussing standards for admissibility of other-suspect evidence)
State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165 (establishing nine-factor test for reliability of child out-of-court statements)
State v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191 (standard of review for admission of child hearsay)
State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529 (prosecutor may fairly respond to defense argument in closing)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (recognizing defendant's constitutional right to testify)