State Of Washington v. Paul Gilmore, 47693-2

Background

Paul Gilmore, a U.S. Navy machinist and stepfather to MB (born 2006), was tried for: first-degree child molestation, communicating with a minor for immoral purposes, and four counts of first-degree viewing depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct based on MB’s disclosures and Gilmore’s computer history.
MB told family she had been shown pornographic images/videos titled with terms like “daddy’s little girl”; she testified she had seen videos/photos of adults and children with explicit sexual contact and that Gilmore touched her private part.
Police interviewed Gilmore (Miranda warnings given); he admitted he “possibly/probably” searched for sites with titles referencing “daddy’s little girl” but denied showing MB sexual material.
Forensic examiners produced internet-history reports showing Gilmore accessed many pornographic sites; investigators later visited listed sites and documented images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct (no child porn files were found on Gilmore’s hard drive).
Trial court admitted child hearsay and Gilmore’s statements; Gilmore was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 198 months; court imposed a discretionary legal financial obligation (LFO) of $1,135 for appointed counsel fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for four counts of viewing depictions of minors	State: computer history plus investigators’ later access to listed sites permits reasonable inference Gilmore viewed sexually explicit images of minors	Gilmore: no images were on his computer and State cannot prove he actually viewed the images	Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (history + later-observed images) was sufficient to permit a reasonable inference he viewed such depictions
Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object to testimony/arguments/photos/age opinion)	Gilmore: counsel should have objected to mother’s credibility testimony, prosecutor’s references, admission of site photos, and investigator’s age opinions	State: objections would likely fail; many choices were strategic; witnesses’ testimony and lay age opinion were admissible	Affirmed — counsel not deficient and no prejudice shown
Right to wear Navy uniform at trial (motion in limine)	Gilmore: trial court erred by preventing him from wearing his Navy uniform	State: there is no absolute right to wear a uniform; defense did not preserve objection below	Not considered on appeal — Gilmore failed to object below, so issue waived
Imposition of discretionary LFO without inquiry into ability to pay	Gilmore: court imposed LFO without individualized inquiry into present/future ability to pay	State: court asked State about ability to pay and State indicated defendant said he would work after release	Affirmed — court made sufficient inquiry via asking State and record supports finding of ability to pay

Key Cases Cited

State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (2014) (sufficiency review standard)
State v. Farnsworth, 185 Wn.2d 768 (2016) (circumstantial evidence treated like direct evidence)
State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (2011) (ineffective-assistance legal standard)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (LFO: individualized ability-to-pay inquiry required)
State v. Allen, 161 Wn. App. 727 (2011) (prosecutor latitude to comment on witness credibility based on evidence)
State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438 (2011) (prosecutorial misconduct standard)
State v. Barry, 183 Wn.2d 297 (2015) (limits on using demeanor/silence as evidence)