IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. RICHARD PETER STAVRAKIS, Appellant. ) No. 74160-8-1 .".".' j' - ' ) DIVISION ONE U3 ••!:.".. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION

- r\5 ? •,:.::: CD :- • ) FILED: January 19, 2016 Appelwick, J. — Richard Stavrakis was convicted of child molestation in 

### the firstdegree. He argues that he was denied a fair trial, because the trial court excluded evidence leading up to the victim's disclosure ofabuse and evidence of
a witness's prior inconsistent statements. We affirm. FACTS 

### In fall of2006, the Stavrakis family had a barbeque. Richard1 visited his brother, John, and John's wife, Angela, at their house in Vancouver. John and Richard's mother, Helen, also lived there. John and Angela's two children, A.S. 

### and P.S., were present as well. A.S., Richard's niece, was eight years old at the time. Richard, A.S., and P.S. wanted to use the hot tub. But, the family had a 

### rule that only two people could use the hot tub at a time. So, A.S. and Richard got in the hot tub first. 

### When A.S. got in the hot tub, Richard told her to get on his lap, and she 

### obeyed. She satin the waterwith her back to his chest. Richard then put his hand
1 We refer to the members of the Stavrakis family by their first names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.No. 74160-8-1/2
inside A.S.'s swimsuit bottom, touching her inside her vagina. This continued for
some time. Richard stopped when P.S. came outside to demand his turn inthe hot tub. 

### That day, A.S. revealed to her mother, Angela, that Richard had touched 

### her. Angela shared this disclosure with John. John and Angela confronted Richard about it. Richard told them that he did not touch A.S., although his hand 

### may have slipped as he lifted her over his lap. After this event, A.S. was not allowed to be alone with Richard. 

### InNovember2010, when A.S. was twelve, she got in trouble at school. She 

### was found inpossession of alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, and stolen property. The 

### policebecame involved. A.S. was not charged with any crimes, butshe completed
a diversion program. As a result of this event, A.S. was expelled and began attending a new 

### school. Her new school offered a peer support group for students who had been 

### using drugs and alcohol. A.S.began attending sessions ofthis peer support group. 

### During a session, another girl revealed thatshe had been abused. The counselor noticed that A.S. was crying while listening to the other student's story, and asked A.S. ifsomething had happened to her. A.S. disclosed the abuseto the counselor. Itwas the first time that A.S. had told anyone outside of her family about what 

### happened in the hot tub. As a mandatory reporter, the counselor was required to contact Child Protective Services and the police to inform them of A.S.'s disclosure.No. 74160-8-1/3 The State charged Richard withrape of a child inthe firstdegree, or in the alternative, child molestation in the first degree. 

### After a jury trial, Richard was convicted of child molestation in the first degree. He appeals. DISCUSSION Richard contends thattwo ofthe trial court's evidentiary rulings violated his 

### right to a fair trial. He argues that the trial court erred byexcluding evidence of A.S.'s expulsionfrom school and herparticipation in a diversion program. And, he asserts that the trial court erred in excludingevidencethat John made inconsistent statements during pretrial defense interviews. I. Evidence ofA.S.'s Expulsion and Participation in a Diversion Program Richard contends that the trial court denied him a fair trial by excluding 

### evidencethat A.S. was attending grouptherapy as a result of hercriminal activities 

### and expulsion from school. Heasserts that this evidence was critical to attacking A.S.'s credibility, because it provided her a motive tofabricate a claim of abuse. Before trial, the State moved to exclude evidence that A.S. completed a 

### diversion program with the Clark County Juvenile Department on charges of possession of stolen property, possession ofmarijuana, minor in possession, and minor in possession of tobacco. It moved to exclude evidence that A.S. was expelledfrom school because of this event. And, it moved to exclude evidence that A.S. was participating in group therapy because of or as a punishment for this event. Defense counsel opposed this motion, arguing that the evidence must 

### comein during hisopening statement and hiscross-examination ofA.S., becauseNo. 74160-8-1/4
otherwise the jury would not hear the full story. Defense counsel repeated on multiple occasions, "It would be a failure ofjustice for all the evidence not to come out." He elaborated, "Every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end, alright? You can't just ask this jury to get to the end of the story and say we want a conviction without showing the beginning and how we got there." The trial court concluded that evidence of A.S.'s participation in a diversion program and her expulsion from school was irrelevant, as itdealt only withcollateral issues. 

### The relevancy and admissibility ofevidence is a matter within the discretion ofthe trial court. State v. Aquirre. 168 Wn.2d 350, 361, 229 P.3d 669 (2010). We 

### review only for a manifest abuse of discretion, |d. Abuse exists ifthe trial court's exercise of discretion is manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable 

### grounds. State v. Powell, 126Wn.2d 244, 258, 893 P.2d 615 (1995). Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, 

### section 22 of the Washington State Constitution, defendants have the right to 

### present relevant evidence in their defense. State v. Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d 1, 14-15, 659 P.2d 514 (1983). Evidence is relevantifittends to make the existence of any 

### consequentialfact more or less probable. ER401. The proponentofthe evidence bears the burden ofestablishing relevance and materiality. State v. Hilton, 164 Wn. App. 81, 99, 261 P.3d 683 (2011). 

### Richard now contends that he sought to introduce this evidence to show that A.S. had a motive to fabricate the abuse. But, defense counsel never 

### explained this theory attrial. The closest he came toproviding this theory attrial was his statement, "[l]n other words, yourHonor, she goes from beingin troubleNo. 74160-8-1/5 

### to being a victim, immediately." But, A.S. would immediately be viewed as the victim whether she made a truthful disclosure or a fabricated disclosure. Whether
or notA.S. disclosed so that shewould be viewed as a victim is merely speculation. 

### And, that speculation is not more probative of the disclosure of abuse being untruthful. The trial court has discretion to exclude impeachment evidence when the 

### evidence sought is vague and speculative. Statev.Jones, 67 Wn.2d 506, 512-13, 408 P.2d 247 (1965). Such evidence is collateral to the principal issues and 

### consequently irrelevant. See id. The trial court did not err inconcluding that the evidence was collateral. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence on this subject.

II. John's Inconsistent Statements 

### Richard also argues that the trial court denied him a fairtrial byexcluding evidence that John previouslystated that Richard had raped A.S. multiple times. John was interviewed by the defense after the investigation had begun. 

### During that interview, he stated that hiswife told him thatA.S. had revealed that Richard had raped hermultipletimesintheir house when no one else was around. 

### Shortly after the interview, John spoke with his wife and realized that he had misunderstood what she had told him. The State intended to call John as a 

### witness. But, itsought to exclude the evidenceregarding John's misunderstanding of the details of the abuse, because itwas a collateral issue. Defense counsel 

### objected to the State's motion toexcludethisevidence, arguing thatitwascrucial to John's credibility as a witness. Thetrial court decided thatitwould permittheNo. 74160-8-1/6
defenseto impeach John with his earlierstatements. As a result, the Statedecided
not to call John as a witness. Subsequently, defense counsel decided to call John as a witness. The State argued that the defense should not be permitted to bring out John's inconsistent statements, because it would be calling the witness solelyto impeach him. The court found that the defense's primary purpose of calling John was to 

### impeach him on a collateral issue. So, while John could testify as to facts concerning the day of the abuse, he could not be impeached with his prior
statements. 

### A party may impeach its own witness. However, a party may not call a witness for the primarypurpose of impeaching a witness with testimony that would otherwise be inadmissible. State v. Lavaris, 106 Wn.2d 340, 345-46, 721 P.2d 

### 515 (1986). Impeachment evidence on acollateralmatter isinadmissible. Aquirre, 168Wn.2dat362. 

### Here, the facts surrounding the defense's decision to callJohn as a witness 

### demonstrate that the primarypurpose of doing so was to impeach John with his 

### priorinconsistentstatements. Although Richard nowclaims that he sought toelicit John's prior statements to impeach A.S.'s claims, attrial, defense counsel clearly stated that these statements were crucial to John's credibility. Moreover, thefirst time the defense showed any intention of calling John as
a witness was after the State decided not to call him. The defense claimed that 

### John couldprovide additional facts about the day in question. But, John did not 

### haveknowledge of anyadditional facts not alreadyin evidence. He was going inNo. 74160-8-1/7

and out of the house when A.S. and Richard were in the hot tub. A.S. did not directly disclose the abuse to John. He knew of what happened only because Angela told him. Angela had already testified. Defense counsel sought to call John simply to impeach him on a collateral matter. Therefore, we hold thatthetrial courtdid notabuse its discretion by limiting John's testimony to his knowledge ofthe facts ofA.S.'s abuse. Richard also filed a pro se statement of additional grounds in which he contends the trial court violated his constitutional rights by excluding evidence about A.S.'s expulsion and criminal activity. We need not address this argument, as it isadequately addressed in his appellate counsel's brief. See Statev. Gomez, 152 Wn. App. 751, 754, 217 P.3d 391 (2009) (refusing to address defendant's statement ofadditional grounds because itraised no new issues). We affirm.

WE CONCUR:

^d.