State Of Washington v. Leslie Guy Wilson, 74944-7

Leslie Wilson (adult) lived with his wife Claudine and her granddaughter B.E.; B.E. was born in 2006 and was about 5–6 when alleged incidents occurred.
B.E. disclosed that Wilson touched her genital area, described penile and digital contact, and recounted an episode in which Wilson allegedly asked her to "suck on it like a sucker."
Medical exams showed minor abrasions and otherwise largely normal findings; testing for STIs was negative.
The State charged Wilson with two counts of first-degree child rape and one count of attempted first-degree child rape; jury convicted him of one rape count and attempted rape, acquitting on the other rape count.
On appeal the court considered (1) whether the jury was properly instructed on attempt, (2) whether admission of prior sexual misconduct under ER 404(b) was proper, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence for attempted rape (double jeopardy claim regarding retrial).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wilson)	Held
Jury instruction on attempt elements	No argument contesting need; state concedes error once shown	Trial court failed to instruct jury that attempt requires intent and a substantial step	Reversal of attempted rape conviction because failure to instruct on attempt elements was constitutional error
Admission of ER 404(b) prior-act evidence (S.H.'s remark)	Evidence showed common scheme/plan and was admissible for nonpropensity purpose	Prior remark was dissimilar, merely showed propensity, and was unfairly prejudicial	Reversal of rape conviction: prior remark not "markedly and substantially similar," admission was abuse of discretion and prejudicial
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted rape (double jeopardy)	Evidence (B.E.'s statements & context) was sufficient to prove intent and substantial step	Words alone insufficient (relying on Grundy); no substantial step shown	Evidence was sufficient to support attempted rape conviction on the record, so retrial is not barred despite reversal for instructional error
Miscellaneous post-trial claims (ineffective assistance, arrest, seized records)	N/A / not before trial court	Raised in statement of additional grounds on appeal	Court declines to address: claims vague and largely outside appellate record; PRP would be proper vehicle

State v. Aumick, 126 Wn.2d 422 (1995) (attempt has elements of intent and substantial step; failure to instruct is constitutional error)
State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682 (1988) (due process requires jury be instructed on all elements beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405 (2012) (ER 404(b) "markedly and substantially similar" requirement for common scheme evidence)
State v. Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630 (2002) (standard of review and exclusion principle for ER 404(b) evidence)
State v. Grundy, 76 Wn. App. 335 (1994) (words alone may show intent but may be insufficient for substantial step without more)
State v. Jackson, 62 Wn. App. 53 (1991) (jury may infer attempt without physical contact or explicit intent statement)
State v. Johnson, 173 Wn.2d 895 (2012) (substantial step defined as strongly corroborative of criminal purpose)
State v. Wright, 165 Wn.2d 783 (2009) (double jeopardy limitations on retrial after reversal depend on sufficiency of evidence)