State Of Washington, V Jerome P. Medina, 48053-1

Jerome Medina was charged with nine felony counts of violating a no-contact order that permitted written contact only by U.S. mail or e-mail; nine charges arose from a shotgun photo and multiple messages sent to his ex-partner Heather Mattox.
Mattox received a photo (Medina holding a shotgun captioned "I'm ready") and several messages on April 28, 2014 from a phone number she associated with Medina.
A jury convicted Medina of eight counts (guilty on Counts I–III and V–IX; no verdict on IV).
The trial court merged Counts V–IX for sentencing and imposed legal financial obligations, including a $100 payment to the county expert witness fund.
Medina appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence, vagueness of the e-mail exception to the no-contact order, double jeopardy as to multiple messages in one day, and the expert fund fee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove messages violated no-contact order	State: evidence that Mattox received texts from a number linked to Medina sufficed	Medina: messages could have been sent as e-mail converted to texts; State failed to prove they were texts	Affirmed: jury could reasonably infer Medina sent texts from the phone number Mattox recognized
Vagueness of no-contact order permitting contact only by e-mail	State: "e-mail" has ordinary meaning and gives fair notice	Medina: "e-mail" could ambiguously include texts, social media, or e-mail-to-text conversions	Affirmed: term "e-mail" has ordinary meaning distinguishing it from text messages; condition not unconstitutionally vague
Double jeopardy for multiple messages sent same day	State: each discrete contact is a separate unit of prosecution	Medina: multiple messages same day amount to a single continuing offense	Affirmed: each individual contact/message is a separate unit of prosecution; convictions do not violate double jeopardy
Authority to impose $100 expert witness fund fee	State: court may impose lawful costs and fees incurred in prosecution	Medina: no expert was used; fee not incurred by State in this prosecution	Reversed as to fee: remand to strike the $100 expert witness fund obligation

State v. Hosier, 157 Wn.2d 1 (discusses sufficiency review standard)
State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (addresses inferences and sufficiency-review principles)
State v. Goodman, 150 Wn.2d 774 (circumstantial evidence probative as direct)
State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821 (deference to fact finder on credibility)
State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739 (vagueness and community custody condition analysis)
State v. Sanchez Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782 (review of community custody conditions and manifest unreasonableness)
State v. Allen, 150 Wn. App. 300 (each act of sending electronic contact can be separate unit of prosecution)
State v. Brown, 159 Wn. App. 1 (RCW 26.50.110 criminalizes each contact)
State v. Hall, 168 Wn.2d 726 (double jeopardy and multiple convictions)
State v. Villanueva-Gonzalez, 180 Wn.2d 975 (double jeopardy standard of review)
State v. Ose, 156 Wn.2d 140 (legislative use of "a" authorizes punishment for each instance)