## Facts

- Ronald Cuthbert was appointed guardian of the person and estate of his severely disabled son, Ryan, after a medical-malpractice settlement; Ryan also received recurring tribal disbursements.
- The guardianship order required received cash to be placed in an interest-bearing account and permitted disbursements for Ryan’s medical and physical needs; it also required a court accounting every three years.
- After Ryan reached adulthood, Cuthbert began taking larger “reimbursements” from guardianship funds for Ryan’s share of household costs and paid himself $2,500 per month as caregiving “compensation,” without court authorization.
- Cuthbert deposited some of Ryan’s settlement and tribal checks into Cuthbert’s personal account rather than the guardianship account and omitted unauthorized transactions from court accountings.
- After Cuthbert failed to file a required accounting, the court ordered compliance, appointed a guardian ad litem to investigate, and removed Cuthbert as guardian.
- The State charged Cuthbert with multiple theft counts, including a count alleging a common scheme to deprive the estate of more than $200,000, and additional counts tied to specific checks and deposits.
- At trial, Cuthbert admitted he lacked court permission for the reimbursements and salary but asserted he acted in good faith and that amounts were reasonable; the jury convicted him of 16 counts of first-degree theft and 1 count of second-degree theft.

## Issues

1. Whether denying public funds for a forensic accountant violated due process or the right to effective assistance of counsel.
2. Whether excluding evidence about Ryan’s care needs and excluding a court order related to a tribal check were abuses of discretion requiring reversal.
3. Whether Cuthbert was entitled to a good-faith claim-of-title jury instruction.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the theft convictions.
5. Whether cumulative error required reversal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed all convictions except one first-degree theft count (count two).
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying public funds for a forensic accountant because Cuthbert failed to make a specific showing that the expert was necessary to an adequate defense.
- The court largely upheld limits on testimony about the level and cost of Ryan’s care because the central question was authority under the guardianship order, not the objective reasonableness of expenditures.
- The court reversed count two and remanded because excluding a superior court order relevant to a specific tribal check improperly prevented Cuthbert from presenting evidence bearing on authority or good-faith belief as to that transaction.
- The court held Cuthbert was not entitled to a good-faith claim-of-title instruction because substantial evidence did not support a bona fide belief of entitlement in light of the guardianship order, lack of court approval, and nondisclosure in accountings.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the remaining theft convictions when viewed in the light most favorable to the State.
- The court rejected cumulative error because only one reversible error occurred and it was limited to count two.

## Legal Principles

- An indigent defendant is entitled to publicly funded expert services only upon a specific showing that the expert is necessary to an adequate defense; an expert being merely helpful is insufficient.
- Evidence may be limited where it does not address the controlling issue; in fiduciary-theft cases involving court-supervised guardianships, authority under court orders and required disclosures can be central.
- Excluding defense evidence that directly bears on an essential element (such as authorization or lawful control) can require reversal, but the remedy may be limited to the affected count.
- A defendant is entitled to a good-faith claim-of-title instruction only if substantial evidence supports a bona fide belief of entitlement; a subjective assertion, contradicted by governing orders and concealment of transactions, is insufficient.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing evidence most favorably to the State, any rational trier of fact could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court treated unauthorized, undisclosed withdrawals and deposits by a guardian as capable of supporting theft convictions, rejected a claim-of-title instruction absent substantial supporting evidence, and affirmed most convictions while reversing and remanding one count due to exclusion of defense evidence tied to a specific transaction.


State v. Cuthbert, 154 Wash. App. 318, 225 P.3d 407 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010)