State Of Washington, V. Rene Phillip Dallas, 81094-4

Victim A.L.M. lived with Rene Dallas and her mother; alleged sexual abuse occurred when she was about 11 (summer–winter 2007).
A.L.M. testified to multiple instances of waking to Dallas digitally penetrating or touching her vulva; she identified him by silhouette and cigarette smell.
In January 2008 A.L.M.’s mother, Monique Lacasse, observed Dallas standing on a chair looking into A.L.M.’s bedroom window while A.L.M. was toweling off; Lacasse drove away and did not report it then.
Dallas was charged (later amended) with multiple counts of first‑degree rape of a child and first‑degree child molestation for acts in 2007–2008; a jury convicted on all counts.
On appeal Dallas challenged (1) admission of Lacasse’s uncharged-window‑peeping testimony as evidence of a lustful disposition under ER 404(b), and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Lacasse’s testimony about uncharged window‑peeping under ER 404(b) as evidence of lustful disposition	Testimony was directly connected to the victim, showing sexual desire for the specific child and admissible for lustful disposition; probative value outweighed prejudice	Incident was not proven by preponderance on the record, was not clearly sexual, and was unduly prejudicial such that ER 403 required exclusion	Court affirmed admission: judge implicitly found the act occurred by preponderance, identified purpose, weighed probative v. prejudicial, and did not abuse discretion (cross‑examination could address inferences)
Sufficiency of evidence for rape of a child (first degree)	Victim’s testimony described three instances of digital penetration when she was 11; this satisfied elements of sexual intercourse by penetration and age/gap requirements	Evidence insufficient—victim’s testimony unreliable/uncorroborated	Evidence sufficient: viewed in light most favorable to State, a rational trier of fact could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt
Sufficiency of evidence for child molestation (first degree)	Victim’s testimony described two instances of external genital touching by Dallas when she was 11, satisfying sexual contact and age/gap elements	Evidence insufficient for conviction	Evidence sufficient: touching of genitalia constituted intimate area and supported conviction under statute

State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11 (Wash. 2003) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings; legal questions reviewed de novo, discretionary admissions for abuse of discretion)
State v. Foxhoven, 161 Wn.2d 168 (Wash. 2007) (sets out ER 404(b) multi‑step admissibility framework)
State v. Ray, 116 Wn.2d 531 (Wash. 1991) (allows prior collateral sexual misconduct to show lustful disposition toward a specific victim)
State v. Ferguson, 100 Wn.2d 131 (Wash. 1983) (explains kinds of conduct that may prove sexual desire for a particular person)
State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628 (Wash. 1995) (ER 404(b) analysis should be conducted on the record to facilitate review)
State v. Lough, 125 Wn.2d 847 (Wash. 1995) (party offering 404(b) evidence must prove prior misconduct by a preponderance)
State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405 (Wash. 2012) (ER 402/403 relevance and unfair prejudice balancing principles)
State v. Cardenas‑Flores, 189 Wn.2d 243 (Wash. 2017) (circumstantial evidence is equally probative as direct evidence for sufficiency review)