State Of Washington v. Emanuel J. Moore, 48814-1

Background

In 2014–2015, Michaela Fish ("Heaven") worked as an escort and used Backpage ads; Emanuel J. Moore (alias "Boss/Bos$") provided a hotel room, protection during dates, received money from Fish, and let her use his phone (ending 4727) for arranging dates.
Undercover officer Sgt. David Crommes contacted Fish through Backpage numbers (5529, later 8632); Crommes received texts shortly before a sting from the 4727 number tied to Moore.
Police arrested Fish and Moore at the Western Inn after a planned date; officers rang 4727 from a patrol phone and a phone in Moore’s vehicle rang; Moore admitted the phone was his.
Text messages from numbers 4727, 5529, and 8632 were admitted at trial without defense objection and used to connect Moore to the arrangement of dates.
Moore was charged with second-degree promoting prostitution and unlawful delivery of a controlled substance (two distinct deliveries alleged); jury convicted on promoting prostitution and deadlocked on delivery. After deliberations began, the court gave a unanimity instruction on the delivery charge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Moore)	Held
Counsel ineffective for not objecting to 4727 text messages	Admission was properly authenticated and admissible; messages corroborated witness testimony	Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to unauthenticated texts	No ineffective assistance: authentication would likely have been found sufficient, so objection probably would not have succeeded
Sufficiency of evidence for promoting prostitution (knowingly advanced/profited)	Evidence showed Moore paid for room, protected Fish, received money, and provided phone — supports knowing advancement/profit	Acts were equivocal; at most permissive association and occasional phone use	Evidence sufficient: reasonable juror could find Moore knowingly advanced/profited
Unanimity instruction given after deliberations began (CrR 6.15(f)(2))	Instruction was necessary to prevent nonunanimous verdict on one count alleging multiple acts; it required jurors to agree on the same act	Giving such instruction after deliberations began violated the rule against suggesting need for agreement and risked coercion	No violation: instruction merely protected unanimity (Petrich requirement), did not coerce or suggest reaching agreement or timing, so allowed
Multiple claims in SAG (e.g., denied cross-exam, inability to view texts, counsel conflict, juror bias, lack of probable cause)	N/A (SAG raises miscellaneous post-trial claims)	Claims raised without adequate record or clarity; some require record supplementation or PRP	Court declined relief: unclear claims not addressed; several require expanded record in a personal restraint petition; probable-cause claim not specifically argued so not reached

Key Cases Cited

State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870 (Supreme Court of Washington) (standard for reviewing ineffective assistance claims)
In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647 (Supreme Court of Washington) (three-part test for ineffective assistance showing)
State v. Young, 192 Wn. App. 850 (Court of Appeals of Washington) (text-message authentication by recipient’s knowledge)
State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566 (Supreme Court of Washington) (unanimity requirement when multiple acts alleged)
State v. Vasquez, 178 Wn.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Washington) (evidence must not be merely equivocal for intent-based crimes)
State v. Ford, 171 Wn.2d 185 (Supreme Court of Washington) (Allen-style/coercive instruction prohibition)
State v. Watkins, 99 Wn.2d 166 (Supreme Court of Washington) (origin and purpose of CrR 6.15(f)(2))