State v. Thorgerson, 258 P.3d 43

D.T., age 17 at reporting, disclosed stepfather Thorgerson sexually abused her beginning when she was six or seven.
Thorgerson was charged with three counts of first-degree and one count of second-degree child molestation based on D.T.'s statements; no physical or eyewitness evidence.
At trial, the State relied on D.T.'s testimony and statements she made to others; Thorgerson denied improper contact and claimed D.T. fabricated the abuse.
The defense argued the allegations were part of a scheme by D.T. and her boyfriend to circumvent parental rules; the defense elicited that D.T. had told multiple people the same story.
Thorgerson did not object to prosecutorial comments during trial; the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor vouching for credibility	Thorgerson argues the State vouched for D.T.'s credibility by referencing out-of-court statements.	Thorgerson contends the comments bolstered D.T.'s credibility and indicated the State's knowledge beyond the record.	Not reversible misconduct; not prejudicial in context.
Impugning defense counsel	Prosecutor described defense tactics as 'sleight of hand' and used disparaging terms.	These remarks impugned the integrity of defense counsel and were planned in advance.	Misconduct occurred but not likely to alter the outcome; curative instruction would suffice.
Burden shifting	Prosecutor implied defense must produce contradictions and alleged the defense grind out contradictions.	Defense opened the door by cross-examining for inconsistencies; statements were within closing argument latitude.	No improper burden shifting; argument permissible given defense strategy.
Prejudice and cumulative effect	Prosecutor's vouching, impugning remarks, and burden shifting collectively prejudiced the jury.	Cumulative error warrants reversal due to flagrant misconduct.	No cumulative prejudice; no reversal required.
Constitutional rights claims	Thorgerson asserts due process and ineffective assistance for failing to object to misconduct.	Counsel did not render ineffective assistance because conduct was not reversible error.	No constitutional violation established; ineffective assistance claim rejected.

State v. Magers, 164 Wash.2d 174 (2008) (prosecutorial misconduct standard and prejudice analysis)
State v. Russell, 125 Wash.2d 24 (1994) (cannot rely on unpresented evidence to convict; can respond to defense arguments)
State v. Boehning, 127 Wash.App. 511 (2005) (flagrant suggestion of hearsay bolstering credibility; reversible in Boehning)
State v. Warren, 165 Wash.2d 17 (2008) (prosecutor may not disparage defense counsel; closing argument latitude)
State v. Dhaliwal, 150 Wash.2d 559 (2003) (standard for prejudice from prosecutorial misconduct; context-sensitive review)
State v. Ish, 170 Wash.2d 189 (2010) (review of prosecutorial misconduct in broader context)
State v. Weber, 159 Wash.2d 252 (2006) (prejudice must be shown in context of evidentiary ruling and trial)