Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts

the issues in the case, the evidence addressed in the argument, and the
instructions given to the 5 '
j ury,
Id. quoting ( Brown, 132 Wn.2d at 561).
R]emarks must be read in context." State v. Pastrana, 94 Wn. App.
463, 479, 972 P.2d 557 (1999).
In the present case, the defendant argues that the deputy prosecutor
committed prosecutorial misconduct when she stated in closing argument,
in regard to C.D. the following:
Fully toilet trained and begins wetting the bed, C.J.
Ellsworth was here and said yes, it can be relevant in
treating someone's mental health, can be part of anxiety,
it's simply something noteworthy, less so obviously to the
medical professionals.
RP 797; Brief of Appellant, p. 21-22, 27-30. The defendant seems to
contend that this argument was prosecutorial misconduct because it
constituted a "concerted effort to persuade the jury that C.D,' s bedwetting
was caused by the alleged inappropriate touch by McDaniel" when there
was a "highly plausible alternative explanation for this behavior that the
prosecutor successfully was able to exclude from the trial," i.e., evidence
of McCutcheon's drug addiction, employment as an exotic dancer, and
CPS involvement. Brief of Appellant, p. 29-30.
The defendant, however, never objected to this argument at trial.
RP 797. See RP 797-824. Therefore, he cannot raise this issue on appeal
unless the misconduct, if any, was "'so flagrant andill-intentioned that it
34 - optest-pros m i scsptrial -mcdaniel. doc