State Of Washington v. Johnson Omotere Ayodeji, 72359-6

Background

Defendant Johnson Ayodeji was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of child rape and child molestation involving two daughters (E.A. and F.A.), based largely on their testimony and a recovered deleted video and images from his SD card.
Incidents spanned several years; key evidentiary items included a May 8, 2013 video of E.A. performing oral sex and photographs; Ruth (mother) identified the male by boxer shorts and body characteristics.
The trial court played the video for jurors but arranged the courtroom so spectators could not see the screen; parties had previously agreed to protective restrictions on the media exhibits.
Defense raised issues on appeal: alleged closure of the courtroom/public trial violation, insufficiency of evidence for some acts, failure to give jury unanimity (Petrich) instructions for rape counts, admission of a post-arrest letter, and several other evidentiary and procedural claims.
The Court of Appeals concluded no public-trial violation (no courtroom closure), found one instructional error (no Petrich instruction for rape counts) but held it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, affirmed convictions, and remanded only to conduct an individualized ability-to-pay inquiry for a discretionary domestic-violence LFO.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Ayodeji's Argument	Held
Public-trial right (video not visible to spectators)	No closure occurred; spectators could observe admission and testimony; protective measures appropriate	Playing exhibit so public could not see closed the courtroom and violated public trial right	No violation — right attached but no closure; spectators observed admission and testimony (affirmed)
Sufficiency of evidence for multiple alleged molestation acts	Jury was properly instructed on elements; jurors presumed to follow instructions so convictions rest on proven acts	Some alleged contacts lacked proof of sexual-gratification element so convictions should be vacated	No error — jury instructions required unanimity on proven acts and some acts had sufficient evidence (affirmed)
Failure to give Petrich (unanimity) instruction for rape counts	Instructions taken as whole plus prosecutor’s closing sufficed; any error harmless	Trial court erred by failing to give Petrich instruction for rape counts and error was prejudicial	Error: court should have given Petrich instruction for rape counts, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (affirmed)
Admission of post-arrest letter (ER 404(b))	Letter was admitted for non-propensity purposes (manipulation, cultural context); State would not use it to prove violation of no-contact order	Letter was improper 404(b) evidence because it showed defendant violated restraining/no-contact order	No abuse of discretion — letter was relevant for manipulation/context; defendant’s cross-examination opened prior-bad-act inquiry (affirmed)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Love, 183 Wn.2d 598 (Wash. 2015) (public-trial right and courtroom closure analysis)
State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58 (Wash. 2013) (public-trial purposes and experience/logic test)
State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508 (Wash. 2014) (framework for determining public-trial violations)
State v. Magnano, 181 Wn. App. 689 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) (discussion of playing audio exhibits in open court)
State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566 (Wash. 1984) (requirement of jury unanimity on specific act in multiple-acts prosecutions)
State v. Coleman, 159 Wn.2d 509 (Wash. 2007) (presumption of prejudice when Petrich instruction omitted)
State v. Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d 403 (Wash. 1988) (when unanimity error is not harmless where conflicting testimony allows jurors to distinguish acts)
State v. Bobenhouse, 166 Wn.2d 881 (Wash. 2009) (unanimity error found harmless where acts were regular and undifferentiated)
Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 (Wash. 1982) (factors for sealing/limiting public access to court records)