State of Washington v. Ramil Agles Serrano
37980-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Victim S.S., female, lived with Ramil Serrano beginning when she was about eight; Serrano later moved out and the abuse was disclosed about six months after he left.
- S.S. reported repeated sexual contact by Serrano; a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) interviewed and examined her and documented S.S.’s identification of “Ramil” and descriptions of contact both "on" and "in" her vagina.
- SANE found S.S. healthy with no acute trauma; a herpes simplex type 1 test was positive but not determinative of sexual abuse.
- Serrano gave two recorded interviews; in the second he described wrestling and admitted his penis had been against S.S.’s vagina while she wore thin pajamas.
- At a bench trial the court found S.S. credible and Serrano not credible, convicting him of first‑degree rape of a child and first‑degree child molestation and sentencing him to 160 months plus financial obligations.
- On appeal Serrano challenged sufficiency of the evidence, double jeopardy (two convictions for same conduct), and the imposition of interest on non‑restitution legal financial obligations (LFOs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence — first‑degree child rape | State: Victim testimony, SANE interviews, and Serrano's admission support conviction | Serrano: Victim testimony was inconsistent, vague, and physical exam normal; insufficient proof of penetration | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; deference to trier of fact on credibility |
| Sufficiency of evidence — first‑degree child molestation (intimate contact/sexual purpose) | State: Testimony showed penis both on and in victim and supports inference of sexual gratification | Serrano: Claimed contact occurred over pajamas during wrestling — requires extra proof if clothes cover intimate part | Affirmed — trial court reasonably found intimate contact and sexual purpose beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Interest on non‑restitution LFOs | State: Concedes interest on non‑restitution LFOs is barred by statute | Serrano: Challenged interest accrual on non‑restitution obligations | Remanded — strike interest provision (State conceded error) |
| Double jeopardy (multiple convictions for same conduct) | State: Rape and molestation are distinct when evidence shows both intercourse and separate sexual touching | Serrano: Convictions may punish same acts twice | Affirmed — evidence supported distinct acts (both "on" and "in" alleged, multiple occasions), so no double jeopardy |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (Wash. 1992) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to the State)
- State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (Wash. 2014) (deference to trier of fact on credibility and persuasiveness of testimony)
- State v. Cardenas‑Flores, 189 Wn.2d 243 (Wash. 2018) (trial court retains sole authority to make credibility determinations)
- State v. Alexander, 64 Wn. App. 147 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992) (extreme inconsistencies in a child’s testimony can render evidence insufficient)
- State v. Harstad, 153 Wn. App. 10 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (definition of "intimate" contact and when touching supports inference of sexual gratification)
- State v. Land, 172 Wn. App. 593 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (distinguishing child rape and child molestation; both convictions may stand if evidence shows intercourse and separate touching)