State Of Washington, V. Omar Carrada-lopez, 81995-0

Background

Detective Jordan posted an undercover ad on SextingForum.com claiming the poster was over 18, then texted with Omar Carrada-Lopez while posing as “Sadie,” who told him she was “almost 16.”
The texts negotiated sexual services (“Fs” = full service) for $150 and arranged a May 1 meeting in a Renton McDonald’s parking lot; Carrada-Lopez arrived in a Mustang and was identified by undercover officers.
Officers arrested Carrada-Lopez at the scene; police found $160 cash and condoms in his wallet and corroborated that his phone number had been used in the exchange.
Carrada-Lopez was tried and convicted of attempted commercial sexual abuse of a minor; a separate communication-with-a-minor count was dismissed pre-sentencing to avoid double jeopardy.
On appeal Carrada-Lopez argued (1) prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire (prosecutor’s statements about systemic racism and invoking her elected boss), (2) improper opinion testimony by detectives about guilt/probable cause, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to those statements.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct in voir dire (statements about systemic racism and "black and brown lives matter")	Statements referenced facts outside the record, invoked prestige of public office, and suggested prosecutors transcended bias — prejudicial and flagrant	Statements were aimed at uncovering juror bias and facilitating voir dire; not improper	No misconduct; voir dire statements permissible and served proper purpose
Ineffective assistance for not objecting to voir dire statements	Counsel should have objected; failure was deficient and prejudicial	Statements were not improper, so not objecting was reasonable trial strategy	No ineffective assistance; no deficient performance shown
Detective testimony expressing opinions about guilt/probable cause	Detective statements (e.g., referencing elements, saying he had probable cause) invaded jury province and amounted to impermissible opinion testimony	Testimony explained investigative course and arrest; such statements about probable cause are common and not automatic opinions of guilt	No reversible error; statements explanatory, not improper opinion of guilt; any prejudice would have been curable and jurors instructed correctly
Ineffective assistance for not objecting to detective testimony	Counsel’s failure to object allowed improper opinion testimony to influence jury	Testimony was admissible/explanatory; objections likely would not have succeeded or were unnecessary	No ineffective assistance; objections were not clearly required and testimony was not improper

Key Cases Cited

State v. Boehning, 127 Wn. App. 511 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (prosecutor duty to ensure defendant receives fair trial)
State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24 (Wash. 1994) (prosecutorial conduct reviewed in context of argument, issues, evidence, and instructions)
State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727 (Wash. 2009) (waiver of prosecutorial misconduct claim absent flagrant, incurable prejudice)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (Wash. 1995) (strong presumption of effective assistance; burden on defendant to show lack of strategic basis)
State v. Black, 109 Wn.2d 336 (Wash. 1987) (witness may not testify to opinion of defendant's guilt)
City of Seattle v. Heatley, 70 Wn. App. 573 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) (officer testimony based on evidence/experience may be helpful and not an opinion on guilt)
State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577 (Wash. 2008) (police opinions of guilt have low probative value; prejudice often curable with instruction)
State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918 (Wash. 2007) (requirements to raise manifest error for first time on appeal)
State v. Davenport, 100 Wn.2d 757 (Wash. 1983) (jurors presumed to follow proper instructions regarding credibility and burden)