State Of Washington v. Scot Christopher Cupples, 75077-1

Scot Cupples was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree child molestation based on allegations by his partner's daughter (age ~11 at time of incidents; 14 at trial).
The State presented testimony from the victim and her father (who reported the abuse to CPS/police); Cupples did not testify.
Defense theory: the daughter was unreliable and the father induced or fabricated allegations (motive to obtain custody or otherwise discredit the mother/household).
Pretrial, the State moved to exclude evidence of a 2005 assault by the father on the mother; the court granted the motion but allowed later proffer outside jury presence.
At trial the court limited cross-examination: it barred questions about physical confrontations between the parents, allowed limited inquiry into CPS contacts and substance abuse (but warned such questioning might open the door to adverse testimony), and excluded a question about a son’s taken video-game device as irrelevant.
Cupples was sentenced to concurrent terms of 89 months to life; he appeals, arguing improper limitation of cross-examination and prosecutorial misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of father's 2005 assault on mother	State: exclude as irrelevant/prejudicial	Cupples: shows father's motive to encourage false accusations	Court: exclusion not an abuse of discretion; relevance not shown
Cross-examining father's CPS reports and substance abuse	State: limited scope; allowed some inquiry tied to CPS concerns	Cupples: these show motive and competing households theory	Court: allowed some CPS/substance questions but limited to avoid opening door; defendant failed to show minimal relevance
Exclusion of question about son's missing video game	State: irrelevant	Cupples: shows father's motive/anger before abuse report	Court: properly excluded as irrelevant
Prosecutor's closing remarks (burden, nurse testimony, witness bias)	State: comments were fair characterizations	Cupples: remarks diluted burden, mischaracterized nurse, vouched for witnesses	Court: most remarks were proper or harmless; one "no personal interest" comment conceded improper but cured by court sustaining objection and rephrasing; no reversible prejudice

State v. Darden, 145 Wn.2d 612 (2002) (standard for reviewing limitations on cross-examination and confrontation rights)
State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1 (1983) (defendant's right to present testimony and confront adverse witnesses)
State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713 (2010) (minimal relevance requirement for cross-examination)
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (no right to question witnesses on irrelevant matters)
State v. Carver, 122 Wn. App. 300 (2004) (prosecutorial misconduct requires showing both improper conduct and prejudice)
State v. Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d 423 (2014) (prosecutor may not trivialize or dilute reasonable-doubt standard)
State v. Barrow, 60 Wn. App. 869 (1991) (permissible to ask jurors to use common sense in assessing circumstantial evidence)
State v. Coleman, 155 Wn. App. 951 (2010) (prosecutor may not vouch for witness credibility)