State of Washington v. Raul Maldonado Pimentel, 60467-1

Raul Maldonado Pimentel was convicted of two counts of indecent liberties with forcible compulsion—domestic violence, and three counts of first-degree child molestation—domestic violence against his grandson EP.
Allegations surfaced in 2021, and Pimentel denied all claims, asserting they were fabricated by family members.
The State admitted evidence under ER 404(b) from Pimentel's adult children (CL and RBP), who testified that Pimentel had previously abused them as minors, to show a common plan.
The first trial ended in a hung jury; after the second trial and following the admission of CL’s and RBP’s testimony, Pimentel was convicted on all counts.
The trial court imposed an exceptional sentence based on jury findings of aggravating factors: abuse of a position of trust and an ongoing pattern of abuse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of 404(b) testimony from CL and RBP	Testimony is relevant to show a common plan and is necessary given the nature of child sexual abuse cases	Prior acts are too remote, too prejudicial, and only show propensity, not a common plan	No abuse of discretion; testimony admissible under ER 404(b) as highly probative and relevant
Admission of detective’s hearsay statements	Statements by Detective Wright explain investigative actions; not for truth	Statements are inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial	Error to admit, but harmless due to direct testimony from CL and RBP
Exclusion of Conchita’s testimony	Exclusion prevented evidence Pimentel’s wife was never told of abuse, supporting defense	The exclusion was incorrect; could support defense theory	Issue not reviewed due to lack of offer of proof at trial
Imposition of exceptional sentence	Sentence based on jury's findings of aggravators	Sentence based on impermissible judicial fact-finding	No constitutional violation; findings were legal conclusions based on jury’s factual findings

State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405 (prior bad acts admissible to prove common plan in child sex abuse cases)
State v. Lough, 125 Wn.2d 847 (common plan or scheme evidence and evidentiary standards under ER 404(b))
State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11 (marked similarity required to admit common plan evidence)
State v. Krause, 82 Wn. App. 688 (probative value heightened in child sex abuse cases)
State v. Suleiman, 158 Wn.2d 280 (trial court's role after jury finds aggravating factors)
State v. Kennealy, 151 Wn. App. 861 (admission of prior sexual abuse to show common plan)