State Of Washington v. Ronald Glenn Daugherty, 47573-1

Background

Victim HH (age 12–13) alleged repeated sexual abuse by her step-grandfather Ronald Daugherty after moving in with him and his wife; charges: four counts of second-degree child rape (convicted on three).
The State sought to admit testimony from AF (Daugherty’s daughter and HH’s step-aunt) about prior child sexual abuse by Daugherty to show a common scheme/plan under ER 404(b).
The trial court admitted AF’s testimony after finding significant common factors and gave limiting instructions; the court excluded mention of Daugherty’s prior conviction/ prison but AF briefly said he was in prison on cross-examination.
The State presented expert testimony about delayed disclosure by child sexual-abuse victims (ER 702) to explain HH’s delayed reporting; the court admitted it as helpful to assess credibility.
Daugherty raised multiple additional arguments in a Statement of Additional Grounds (SAG) including exclusion of allegedly explicit text messages (authentication), limits on his testimony about prior consistent statements, and admission of new factual allegations by AF. Court affirmed convictions and waived appellate costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of AF’s prior-abuse testimony under ER 404(b) as common scheme/plan	AF’s testimony is admissible to show Daugherty used a repeated plan to abuse family members, making HH’s allegations more believable	AF’s and HH’s accounts differ too much; prior acts are prejudicial and show only propensity	Court: Admission proper — similarities (familial trust, isolation, grooming, threats, pornography, escalation) make testimony relevant; probative value outweighed prejudice.
Motion for mistrial after AF referenced Daugherty being in prison	N/A (State relied on curative instruction)	Single ambiguous comment unfairly prejudiced jury and warranted mistrial	Court: Denial proper — remark ambiguous, did not link prison to sexual offense, nonresponsive and jury instructed to disregard.
Admission of expert testimony on delayed disclosure (ER 702)	Expert testimony helps jurors understand common reasons for delayed reporting and rebuts credibility attacks	Testimony unnecessary; simply vouched for HH and unduly bolstered credibility	Court: Admission proper — expert was qualified and testimony was helpful to jury on issues outside common knowledge.
SAG claims: exclusion of text messages, limits on prior consistent statements, admission of AF’s new allegations	N/A (various trial rulings challenged)	Text messages lacked authentication; defendant could testify about prior consistent statements; prior-misconduct testimony need not have been previously disclosed	Court: No reversible error — texts were not authenticated; defendant was allowed to testify about prior consistent statements; admitting AF’s new disclosures was permissible and cross-examination available.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gunderson, 181 Wn.2d 916 (Wash. 2014) (ER 404(b) admission standards and abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405 (Wash. 2012) (common scheme/plan analysis for prior sexual-abuse evidence)
State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11 (Wash. 2003) (need for substantial similarity when prior act is offered to prove that a crime occurred)
State v. Lough, 125 Wn.2d 847 (Wash. 1995) (probative vs. prejudicial balancing for other-acts evidence)
State v. Escalona, 49 Wn. App. 251 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987) (improper reference to prior convictions can require mistrial when logically relevant to charged crime)
State v. Condon, 72 Wn. App. 638 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993) (ambiguous references to jail do not necessarily indicate propensity and may be curable)
State v. Rafay, 168 Wn. App. 734 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (ER 702 admissibility framework)