State Of Washington v. Eugene Andrew Young & Claude Hutchinson, 45996-5

In 2012 Eugene Young and Claude Hutchinson recruited and directed juveniles (N.H., C.B., and R.E.) in prostitution and related schemes; texts and calls were a key means of communication.
C.B. (age 16) stored Young’s contact as “Papi” and exchanged texts with that contact about prostitution; R.E. (age 16) had Young’s number stored as “Y.G.” and received texts soliciting prostitution and discussing restitution from a fraudulent check scheme.
The State charged both defendants with, among other counts, second degree rape, promoting commercial sexual abuse of a minor, communication with a minor for immoral purposes, and second degree attempted theft; both were convicted by a jury.
Young appealed the admission/authentication of text messages attributed to “Papi” and “Y.G.” and argued insufficiency of evidence on communicating with a minor; Hutchinson challenged sufficiency on the communicating-with-a-minor count and alleged prosecutorial misconduct (impugning defense counsel and misstating accomplice law).
The Court of Appeals (Div. II) considered whether the trial court abused its discretion admitting the texts under ER 901 and addressed sufficiency and misconduct claims, affirming both convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authentication of texts (Young)	State: victims’ testimony plus message content identify messages as from Young	Young: other people (e.g., Hutchinson) could have authored messages; authentication insufficient	Court: Admission proper — victims’ personal knowledge plus corroborative content met ER 901(a) prima facie standard
Sufficiency — communicating with a minor for immoral purposes (Hutchinson)	State: evidence (approach, statements about rape/oral sex) supports predatory intent to commit sexual misconduct	Hutchinson: communications about consensual sex with a 16‑year‑old (legal) cannot support the crime	Court: Sufficient — jury could infer communications contemplated rape/sexual misconduct (illegal), satisfying elements
Prosecutor questioning about defense counsel at victim interview (Hutchinson)	State: inquiry relevant to who questioned the witness pretrial	Hutchinson: prosecutor impugned defense counsel’s integrity	Court: Not improper — questioning did not disparage counsel in the way precedent forbids
Prosecutor’s accomplice‑liability argument in closing (both)	State: argument tied to jury instruction showing presence + ready to assist can constitute aiding	Defendants: prosecutor misstated law by suggesting mere presence suffices	Court: No misconduct — initial slip corrected; viewed in context argument was consistent with instruction (presence plus readiness/assistance or active participation)

State v. Bradford, 175 Wn. App. 912 (authentication of texts supported by witness belief, content, timing)
State v. Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d 133 (ER 901 authenticity standard and prima facie showing)
In re Det. of H.N., 188 Wn. App. 744 (analogizing e‑mail/text authentication by content, identifying info, timing)
In re Welfare of Wilson, 91 Wn.2d 487 (presence at scene may support accomplice liability when ready to assist)
State v. Hosier, 157 Wn.2d 1 (purpose of communication-with-minor statute: prevent predatory sexual solicitation)
State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438 (examples of improper prosecutor disparagement of defense counsel)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)