State Of Washington, V S.b., 48231-2

In April 2015, 16-year-old juvenile S.B. slept in an RV with two 13-year-old girls (Jane and Mary) and David; Jane later testified she was awakened during the night by digital penetration and saw S.B. moving nearby.
Jane initially told Mary the next morning only that someone touched her butt; a week later at school she disclosed penetration to friends and the school counselor, Erin Abel, while upset and crying.
The State charged S.B. with second-degree rape (victim physically helpless or mentally incapacitated). S.B. pleaded not guilty and proceeded to a bench trial.
At trial the court admitted Jane’s out-of-court statements to Mary and Abel as excited utterances over S.B.’s hearsay objections; Jane also testified live at trial. The court found S.B. guilty and sentenced him to juvenile custody.
Written findings and conclusions were entered months after appeal was filed; the court’s written findings mirrored its oral ruling. S.B. appealed, raising hearsay exclusion, untimely findings, and insufficiency/credibility arguments in a SAG.

Issue	State's Argument	S.B.'s Argument	Held
Admissibility of Jane’s statements to Mary and Abel as excited utterances	Statements were spontaneous and admissible under excited utterance exception; alternatively, the school conversation re-startled Jane	Statements were made a week later after reflection and thus not excited utterances (hearsay)	Court: Admission as excited utterance was error — the statements were not made while under stress from the assault — but error was harmless because Jane testified consistently at trial and was cross-examined
Timeliness of written findings and conclusions	State submitted findings; delay did not prejudice S.B.	Late entry violated JuCr 7.11(d) and required remand/reversal	Court: Delay did not prejudice S.B.; written findings merely mirrored oral ruling, so no remand required
Sufficiency of the evidence (SAG)	Evidence (victim testimony, drawing, circumstances) supported conviction	Insufficient evidence; victim inconsistent and unclear on date	Court: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, a rational trier of fact could convict; sufficiency upheld
Credibility challenges (SAG)	Credibility was for the trier of fact; live testimony and findings support verdict	Victim’s multiple accounts undermine credibility	Court: Declined to review credibility; credibility determinations are for the factfinder and not revisited on appeal

State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561 (discretionary review standard for hearsay-exception rulings)
State v. Owens, 128 Wn.2d 908 (harmless-error standard for erroneously admitted hearsay when Confrontation Clause not implicated)
State v. Young, 160 Wn.2d 799 (elements for excited utterance admissibility)
State v. Chapin, 118 Wn.2d 681 (timing and requirement to show lack of reflective thought for excited utterance)
State v. Head, 136 Wn.2d 619 (remand required when written findings are not entered; defendant must show prejudice for untimely findings not to be reversible)
State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634 (circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence)