Background - Victim J.G. lived with grandfather Eddy Gonzales and testified to repeated sexual abuse from ages ~6–11: multiple instances of breast fondling, nonpenetrative touching of her vagina, oral sex (penis in mouth; mouth on vagina), and an incident where Gonzales placed his penis in her hand while she slept. - Police were notified in 2013; Gonzales made inculpatory statements to family and police, apologized, and wrote letters from jail referencing J.G.'s potential testimony. - Gonzales was charged with first degree child molestation, two counts of first degree child rape, and witness tampering; the jury acquitted one rape count and convicted on the remaining counts. - On appeal Gonzales raised double jeopardy (molestation vs. rape), challenges to a supplemental jury instruction given during deliberations, admission of evidence of post‑charged misconduct (masturbation while holding J.G.’s bra), and a vagueness/crime‑relatedness challenge to a community custody condition banning parks/playgrounds/schools. - The Court of Appeals affirmed: no double jeopardy because the record made clear different acts supported each conviction; supplemental instruction was proper; lustful‑disposition evidence was admissible under ER 404(b); and the custody condition was neither vague nor unrelated to the crime. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gonzales) | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Double jeopardy: rape vs. molestation | Different elements (rape = intercourse; molestation = sexual contact); State argued separate acts supported each count. | Jury wasn’t instructed to find distinct acts per count, so convictions may double punish the same conduct. | No violation — record (prosecutor's argument and testimony) made it manifestly apparent each conviction rested on separate acts. | | Supplemental jury instruction during deliberations | N/A (State requested reading WPIC 3.01) | Late instruction prejudiced defense; mistrial requested. | Court acted within discretion; WPIC 3.01 did not go beyond arguable matters and no prejudice shown. | | Admission of post‑charged act (masturbation with victim’s bra) | Evidence showed lustful disposition toward victim and was probative; admissible under ER 404(b). | Evidence was propensity evidence, unfairly prejudicial and less probative because it occurred after charged acts. | Admitted — court did not abuse discretion; evidence relevant to lustful disposition and not unduly prejudicial. | | Community custody condition banning parks/playgrounds/schools | Condition is clear and reasonably related to sexual abuse of a minor. | Condition is unconstitutionally vague and not crime‑related. | Affirmed — condition not vague and reasonably related to offense. | ### Key Cases Cited State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646 (double jeopardy review and manifestly apparent test) State v. Land, 172 Wn. App. 593 (treating oral sex as potentially duplicative of molestation such that separate‑act instruction is required) State v. Ray, 116 Wn.2d 531 (uncharged sexual misconduct admissible to show lustful disposition) State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60 (ER 404(b) and lustful disposition doctrine) State v. Becklin, 163 Wn.2d 519 (trial court discretion on supplemental jury instructions) State v. Irwin, 191 Wn. App. 644 (standards for reviewing community custody conditions)