State of Washington v. Scott Robert Watson
34091-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Scott Watson, an adult, exchanged sexually explicit texts and sent two pictures of his erect penis to H.R.B., a 15-year-old who had a prior friendship with Watson and his wife.
- After a protection order, Watson again sent a photo to H.R.B. (after her 16th birthday), met her to give a vibrator, and violated the restraining order; the post-16 incidents resulted in separate charges and venue changes.
- Franklin County charged Watson with communicating with a minor for immoral purposes based on the first (15-year-old) photos; the later photo and restraining-order counts were litigated separately.
- Watson moved pretrial under State v. Knapstad to dismiss the communicating counts; the court dismissed the post-16 count but denied dismissal of the pre-16 count; the case later proceeded to trial.
- At trial the jury convicted Watson on the charged communicating count; the court admitted evidence of the vibrator delivery under ER 404(b) to show intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of pretrial Knapstad motion to dismiss count I | State: Denial proper; evidence supported going to jury | Watson: Pretrial affidavits insufficient; count should be dismissed | Not reviewable on appeal after trial; appellate court declines to review Knapstad ruling |
| Constitutionality (vagueness / as-applied) of RCW 9.68A.090(2) | State: Sending explicit photo to a 15-year-old is sexual misconduct within statute; statute gives fair notice | Watson: Photograph absent an explicit request for sex is not "communication for immoral purposes"; statute vague as applied | Statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied; sending explicit photo to a minor is sexual misconduct and within statute's core |
| Admission of vibrator delivery under ER 404(b) | State: The delivery is probative of intent and part of a course of conduct/grooming | Watson: Incident was remote in time, highly prejudicial, not sufficiently relevant | Admission affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion—evidence relevant to intent and incremental prejudice was acceptable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schimmelpfennig, 92 Wn.2d 95 (Wash. 1979) (holding "communicate" is not unconstitutionally vague and can include course-of-conduct sexual misconduct)
- State v. McNallie, 120 Wn.2d 925 (Wash. 1993) (upholding conviction where defendant exposed himself to children and endorsing statute's reach over sexual misconduct)
- State v. Pietrzak, 100 Wn. App. 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (applying McNallie to uphold communicating-for-immoral-purposes conviction for photographing a minor)
- State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346 (Wash. 1986) (establishing pretrial dismissal procedure akin to summary judgment in criminal cases)
- State v. Lough, 125 Wn.2d 847 (Wash. 1995) (setting framework for admissibility and limiting use of other-act evidence under ER 404(b))