Appellate counsel says GR 37 violation, prosecutorial conduct warrant reversal in State v. Vasquez

Matthew Catala, of the Washington Appellate Project, told the court he represents Juan C. Vasquez and asked the court to reverse the conviction, saying the primary basis at oral argument was a GR 37 rule violation and related prosecutorial misconduct. "We are asking for reversal for several reasons," Catala said as he opened his argument.

Catala identified repeated instances where trial counsel argued with the court in front of the jury and tried to admit Exhibit 18 (the case investigation/police report) after objections were sustained. He said the trial court declined defense-proposed limiting language and instead gave an instruction he called insufficient, arguing the jury should have been told to "disregard everything you heard starting with the first sustained objection." Catala added that the prosecutor's closing amplified repeated statements, which in a case that lacked independent corroboration made the misconduct prejudicial rather than harmless.

The defense framed its prejudice argument around repeated hearsay and what it described as burden-shifting in rebuttal. Catala said some remarks in rebuttal suggested only two defensive explanations—"it wasn't me or she made it up"—and that implication improperly pressed the defense to produce evidence rather than leaving the reasonable-doubt standard intact. The court questioned whether certain defense statements invited response during closing but also probed whether the cumulative effect of repeated errors undermined confidence in the verdict.

The court heard further argument from the state and then Catala returned for rebuttal to reiterate the lack of corroborating direct evidence and the cumulative effect of the challenged conduct. The judges thanked counsel at the close of argument and took the matter under advisement.