State of Washington v. Roger William Flook, Jr., 34220-4

Background

Defendant Roger William Flook was tried for first‑degree child rape and first‑degree child molestation based on allegations by his stepdaughter A.S. of digital penetration and other inappropriate touching during a family motel stay in June 2014.
The prosecution’s case depended primarily on A.S.’s testimony; there was no physical evidence or independent eyewitness corroboration.
Whitman County Sheriff Brett Myers investigated, interviewed both A.S. and Flook, and testified at trial about observations from those interviews.
During redirect, Myers testified (based on his training/experience) that he saw no signs of deception in A.S. and did see signs of deception or evasiveness in Flook—effectively vouching for A.S. and discrediting Flook.
The trial court admitted evidence of other alleged inappropriate conduct by Flook toward A.S. under ER 404(b) (the court found it showed lustful disposition, motive, intent, knowledge, absence of mistake).
Flook was convicted; on appeal, he argued among other claims that Myers’s vouching testimony was improper and constitutionally harmful; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Flook)	Held
Admissibility of sheriff’s testimony about A.S.’s credibility	Testimony described interview techniques and observations of signs of deception; was permissible fact testimony about consistency and indicators.	Such testimony impermissibly vouched for the victim and opined about defendant’s veracity; only the jury may assess credibility.	Reversed: testimony impermissibly vouched; trial court abused discretion and error was constitutional and not harmless.
Sheriff’s testimony about defendant’s deceptiveness (preservation)	Issue not preserved below; objections were limited and did not put trial court on notice for this specific complaint.	Testimony characterized Flook as evasive and deceptive—attacking defense credibility; constitutional error subject to review.	Reviewed as manifest constitutional error; court concluded the vouching extended to Flook and was reviewable and reversible.
Admission of other‑acts evidence under ER 404(b)	Evidence showed lustful disposition and was probative of motive/intent/absence of mistake.	Evidence was propensity evidence, potentially prejudicial; trial court failed to make required on‑the‑record 404(b) findings.	Remanded: trial court had identified purposes but did not make necessary on‑the‑record findings (occurrence by preponderance and probative/prejudice balancing); must do so on retrial.
Sufficiency of evidence for rape and molestation convictions	A.S.’s testimony describing penetration of the folds/labia and repeated under‑clothing touching supported both charges.	Touching was fleeting/equivocal or not sexual for gratification; penetration not proven beyond reasonable doubt.	Held sufficient evidence supported both convictions (but conviction reversed for trial error unrelated to sufficiency).

Key Cases Cited

State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918 (Wash. 2007) (factors for assessing permissibility of witness testimony about another’s veracity)
State v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191 (Wash. 2014) (opinions on guilt invade jury province)
State v. Sutherby, 138 Wn. App. 609 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (reversible error where witness vouched that child was telling the truth)
State v. Alexander, 64 Wn. App. 147 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992) (reversal where expert/counselor opined victim was not lying)
State v. Dunn, 125 Wn. App. 582 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (reversal for impermissible opinion testimony that child’s detailed story established abuse)
State v. Barr, 123 Wn. App. 373 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (officer testimony about deceptive signals improperly invaded jury’s role)