State Of Washington v. Robert R. Reed, 49164-8

JR, a 12-year-old with autism and developmental delays, lived with his father Robert Reed for a short period in 2013; JR later reported sexual abuse by Reed. Reed was tried and convicted of second-degree child rape and second-degree child molestation.
Forensic interviewer and multiple witnesses described JR’s low maturity, reading at a first-grade level and being developmentally delayed; the defense emphasized these limitations to challenge credibility.
Defense theory: JR was abused previously by a third party (mother’s ex-boyfriends) and may have fabricated or misattributed abuse to Reed; defense sought to elicit prior statements by JR to a neighbor (Woodard) about such third-party abuse.
The trial court limited certain ER 613/confrontation-style questioning; nonetheless, Woodard testified that Reed told her JR had been molested by the mother’s boyfriend and that JR also told Woodard he had been abused.
During closing, the prosecutor argued that JR’s developmental immaturity made him unlikely to concoct a scheme to frame Reed; Reed’s counsel did not object.
On appeal Reed asserted ineffective assistance: (1) counsel failed to elicit certain testimony from JR about prior third-party abuse, (2) counsel failed to object to prosecutorial vouching in closing, and (3) cumulative error required reversal. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Reed)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Ineffective assistance — failure to elicit JR’s prior statements to neighbor	Counsel failed to ask JR about statements to Woodard showing prior abuse by mother’s boyfriend, denying full cross-examination and defense	Woodard nonetheless testified to both Reed’s statement and JR’s out-of-court statement; counsel extensively cross-examined JR and argued third-party abuse in closing	No prejudice — no reasonable probability of a different outcome; claim fails
2. Ineffective assistance — failure to object to prosecutorial vouching in closing	Counsel should have objected to prosecutor’s remarks that JR’s immaturity made fabrication unlikely (improper personal vouching)	Prosecutor’s remarks were reasonable inferences from record testimony and were responsive to defense theory; not personal vouching	No deficiency/prejudice — remarks drew on evidence, were invited by defense, so objection would not have succeeded
3. Prosecutorial misconduct (preserved) / waiver (not preserved)	Closing argument vouching prejudiced jury given JR was central witness	No misconduct: argument based on evidence; defense invited remarks; not clear personal opinion	Waived by no contemporaneous objection; even treated as error, not prejudicial
4. Cumulative error	Combined failures deprived Reed of fair trial	Individual claims lack prejudice, so cumulative prejudice not established	No cumulative prejudice; conviction affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870 (2009) (standard of review for ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (2011) ("reasonable probability" prejudice standard under Strickland)
State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136 (1994) (improper prosecutorial vouching; personal opinion standard)
State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727 (2009) (closing argument: prosecutors may draw reasonable inferences from evidence)
State v. Davenport, 100 Wn.2d 757 (1983) (prosecutorial argument invited by defense is not misconduct)
In re Pers. Restraint of Cross, 180 Wn.2d 664 (2014) (cumulative error doctrine; defendant must show multiple prejudicial errors)