State Of Washington v. Alexander Paul Andrew Knight
47736-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2016Background
- In June 2014 nine-year-old M.P. visited a neighbor K.K.’s home where Alexander Knight (19+ years older) was present; later M.P. told her mother Knight touched her buttocks, rubbed toward her perineum, put her on his lap, and asked her to kiss him.
- M.P. immediately disclosed to her mother, then was interviewed the same day by trained detectives; her statements to mother and police were consistent and recorded.
- The State charged Knight with first degree child molestation; pretrial Ryan hearing assessed admissibility of M.P.’s out-of-court statements under RCW 9A.44.120 (child hearsay exception).
- The trial court admitted M.P.’s statements, finding a high level of reliability based on timing, consistency, lack of motive to lie, and nonleading police interview techniques; M.P. was found competent to testify.
- At trial the jury heard testimony and the recorded interview; Knight testified he did not touch M.P. and claimed she kissed him while he reprimanded her; the jury convicted Knight of first degree child molestation.
- Knight appealed, arguing (1) improper admission of child hearsay and (2) insufficient evidence of sexual contact/sexual gratification because the touching was over clothing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Knight) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of child hearsay under RCW 9A.44.120 / Ryan factors | M.P.’s out-of-court statements were reliable: contemporaneous disclosure, consistency, no motive to lie, nonleading interviews | Statements were not spontaneous/were suggested; child may have motive to fabricate after being reprimanded; trial court failed to analyze each Ryan factor/competency | Court affirmed admission; trial court did not abuse discretion and substantial indicia of reliability existed |
| Whether trial court needed to state each Ryan factor on record | Statute/Ryan guide applied; not every factor must be expressly recited | Trial court erred by not addressing each Ryan factor and competency | Court held not required to enumerate each factor; overall reliability analysis sufficed |
| Competency requirement for hearsay admissibility | Admissibility turns on indicia of reliability, not preconditioned on competency | Trial court should have considered child competency in Ryan analysis | Court held competency not required as a precondition to admit hearsay under RCW 9A.44.120 |
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual contact / gratification | Touching of buttocks/perineum, placing child on lap, asking for a kiss, and secrecy instruction support sexual contact and purpose | Touching was over clothing/innocent (tickling); absent direct evidence of sexual gratification, conviction unsupported | Court held evidence sufficient for a rational jury to find sexual contact and sexual gratification; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165 (1984) (sets out factors for assessing reliability of child hearsay)
- State v. C.J., 148 Wn.2d 672 (2003) (standard of review for admitting child hearsay under RCW 9A.44.120)
- State v. Woods, 154 Wn.2d 613 (2005) (clarifies not every Ryan factor must be met; ‘‘substantially met’’ standard)
- State v. Stevens, 158 Wn.2d 304 (2007) (explains burden to prove sexual gratification as part of proving sexual contact)
- State v. Leavitt, 111 Wn.2d 66 (1988) (focus on timing between incident and disclosure for reliability)
- State v. Powell, 62 Wn. App. 914 (1991) (touching over clothing may require additional evidence of sexual purpose)
- State v. Harstad, 153 Wn. App. 10 (2009) (combination of rubbing and other conduct may support inference of sexual purpose)