State Of Washington v. S.T.W.
49415-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- On Feb. 12, 2016, at a high-school gathering, J.L. was sitting on a recliner when juvenile appellant S.T.W. sat on the arm, put his arm around her, later jumped on top of her on the couch, performed a "humping" motion against her buttocks, and grabbed her breast. J.L. told him to stop and struggled to get away.
- After a subsequent encounter on stairs where S.T.W. attempted to slide a hand up J.L.’s leg but did not reach her pelvic area, J.L. and a friend left and reported the incidents to the school counselor, who contacted police.
- The State charged S.T.W. with fourth degree assault and alleged a sexual-motivation special allegation under RCW 13.40.135(1) (juvenile nonsexual offense committed for purpose of sexual gratification).
- The juvenile court found S.T.W. guilty of assault and that the assault on the couch was committed with sexual motivation (relying on hip-thrusting and breast contact); the court also found an attempted assault on the stairs.
- On appeal, S.T.W. challenged sufficiency of the evidence to prove he acted with sexual motivation, arguing that contact through clothing required additional proof of sexual purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove assault was committed for purpose of sexual gratification | State: The assault involved identifiable sexual conduct (hip thrusting, breast grab) supporting sexual-motivation allegation | S.T.W.: Contact was through clothing and therefore, absent additional evidence, insufficient to prove sexual motivation | Affirmed: A rational trier of fact could find sexual motivation based on thrusting and breast contact during the couch assault |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston-Sconiers v. State, 188 Wn.2d 1 (2017) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Halstien v. State, 122 Wn.2d 109 (1993) (conduct before/during offense may show sexual purpose even without sexual contact)
- K.H.-H. v. State, 188 Wn. App. 413 (2015) (sexual-motivation special allegation requires proof the offense was committed for sexual gratification)
- Vars v. State, 157 Wn. App. 482 (2010) (nonsexual offense may be proven to have sexual motivation via circumstantial conduct)
- Harstad v. State, 153 Wn. App. 10 (2009) (in child-molestation context, contact through clothing may require additional evidence to prove sexual contact)
- Powell v. State, 62 Wn. App. 914 (1991) (similar principle in child-molestation cases regarding contact through clothing)