State Of Washington, V Luis G. Gomez-esteban, 48331-9

Defendant Luis Gomez-Esteban was charged with three counts of second-degree child molestation and one count of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes based on multiple incidents with a 12-year-old victim who worked at his parents' restaurant.
Victim A.B. testified about multiple incidents including being touched in a men’s bathroom; a sexual assault nurse exam was normal.
Jury received unanimity instruction (pattern instruction based on WPI 4.25) and each "to convict" instruction required a "separate and distinct incident" for each count.
During deliberations the jury asked two questions about whether the counts corresponded to particular incidents and whether a lack of unanimity required a not guilty verdict; the court told the jury to reread instructions and continue deliberating.
Jury acquitted on count 1 but convicted on the remaining counts; defendant appealed asserting lack of unanimous verdicts, inability to appeal due to non‑specific verdicts, insufficiency of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and judicial pressure on the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury unanimity requirement	State: instructions complied with Petrich and required jury unanimity as to each act	Gomez-Esteban: jury questions show confusion and verdicts were not unanimous	Court: instructions were legally correct; jury questions do not impeach verdict; unanimity requirement satisfied
Specificity of verdicts and right to appeal	State: properly instructed jury makes special verdict forms unnecessary	Gomez-Esteban: lack of special verdicts identifying specific acts prevents meaningful appellate review	Court: no authority requires special verdict forms when jury was properly instructed; right to appeal not denied
Sufficiency of evidence	State: sexual contact (not intercourse) suffices for second-degree child molestation	Gomez-Esteban: nurse found no evidence of intercourse, so evidence insufficient	Court: conviction requires sexual contact, not intercourse; nurse’s lack of evidence of intercourse is irrelevant; evidence sufficient for jury determination
Ineffective assistance / substitution of counsel	State: trial court correctly denied substitution absent good cause; record shows no breakdown	Gomez-Esteban: requested new counsel and claimed counsel ignored him	Court: no showing of irreconcilable conflict or breakdown in communication; complaints outside record cannot be reviewed on direct appeal; claim fails

State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566 (establishes unanimity/election rule when multiple acts are possible)
State v. Moultrie, 143 Wn. App. 387 (approves WPI 4.25 as complying with Petrich)
State v. Ng, 110 Wn.2d 32 (jury questions do not impeach verdict; verdict controls)
State v. Heaven, 127 Wn. App. 156 (discusses double jeopardy risk where jury is unable to specify acts relied upon)
State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d 179 (standard for substitution of counsel – requires good cause)