State Of Washington, V Stanley Sneed Wilson, 47772-6

Background

Victim K.C., age 15, alleged that defendant Stanley S. Wilson digitally penetrated her while she pretended to sleep at her father’s house; she immediately told her father and police, and medical personnel collected DNA swabs.
Y-STR (Y-chromosome) testing by analyst Brad Dixon matched one male profile on K.C.’s sweatpants waistband to Wilson (statistic: 1 in 7,700 U.S. men) and found a partial vaginal profile consistent with Wilson (statistic: 1 in 26); other male profiles were also present on the clothing.
K.C. additionally testified that months before the assault Wilson showed her a movie cover depicting a naked woman and asked if she wanted to watch it; the trial court admitted this as ER 404(b) evidence of “grooming” with a limiting instruction.
Officer Haske testified to K.C.’s out-of-court statements about the assault and the movie incident as excited utterances; Wilson objected to some of that testimony at trial.
At trial, Wilson denied the movie incident and the assault; a jury convicted him of third degree rape and third degree child molestation; he appealed raising confrontation-clause, ER 404(b), excited-utterance, prosecutorial-misconduct, ineffective-assistance, and cumulative-error claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause — admission of database-derived Y-STR occurrence statistics	State: statistic explained Dixon’s opinion and was non‑testimonial background information; Dixon could be cross‑examined about his use of the statistic	Wilson: database search/results were created by others, Dixon didn’t know the search algorithm, so admitting the statistic violated his confrontation right	No violation — under State v. Lui framework the database output was not a separate witness “against” Wilson; Dixon’s testimony and comparison were the inculpatory act
ER 404(b) — admission of prior movie incident as grooming evidence	State: the movie incident showed grooming/plan and was relevant to disposition toward the victim	Wilson: K.C.’s description was too vague and her testimony alone was insufficient to show the act by a preponderance	Admissible — trial court reasonably found by preponderance the incident occurred and that its probative value for grooming outweighed prejudice
Hearsay/Excited Utterance — Officer Haske’s repetition of K.C.’s statements about the movie	State: statements admissible as excited utterances and minimally cumulative	Wilson: admission improperly bolstered K.C.’s testimony and was prejudicial	If error, it was harmless — K.C.’s direct testimony and strong physical/DNA evidence made any effect minimal
Prosecutorial Misconduct — closing argument appealed to passion	State: closing comments about victim’s suffering were permissible; prosecutors may respond to impact of crimes	Wilson: argument improperly urged jurors to punish rather than decide on evidence	Not improper — argument was within permissible bounds and not so flagrant that an instruction couldn’t cure prejudice

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lui, 179 Wn.2d 457, 315 P.3d 493 (2014) (limits confrontation-clause reach for expert testimony relying on work of others)
State v. Jasper, 174 Wn.2d 96, 271 P.3d 876 (2012) (standard of review for confrontation issues)
State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 269 P.3d 207 (2012) (four-part test for ER 404(b) admissibility)
State v. Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630, 41 P.3d 1159 (2002) (ER 404(b) framework quoted for abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Quigg, 72 Wn. App. 828, 866 P.2d 655 (1994) (definition and admissibility of grooming evidence)
State v. Neal, 144 Wn.2d 600, 30 P.3d 1255 (2001) (harmless-error analysis for nonconstitutional hearsay admission)
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 278 P.3d 653 (2012) (standard for waiver and flagrant prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Greiff, 141 Wn.2d 910, 10 P.3d 390 (2000) (cumulative-error doctrine)