State Of Washington v. T.s.t., 73912-3

Victim A.W., age 8, disclosed that her 12-year-old cousin T.S.T. performed sexual acts during a weekend visit in August 2013.
A.W. first told her mother, Brianna McMillon, after McMillon pressed her and would not let her go to bed until she answered; A.W. later confirmed details to Detective Robin Fry at the police station and to child interview specialist Carolyn Webster.
McMillon confronted T.S.T. the next morning; A.W. witnessed the confrontation and later underwent a hospital sexual assault exam.
Trial court held a pretrial hearing and admitted A.W.’s out-of-court statements to her mother, the detective, and the child interviewer under RCW 9A.44.120 (child hearsay statute).
At trial, T.S.T. was convicted of first-degree rape of a child; she appealed, arguing the court misapplied the Ryan factors in admitting the hearsay statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of child hearsay under RCW 9A.44.120 (Ryan factors)	A.W. had motive to lie because her mother forced disclosure; statements to Fry/Webster were not spontaneous and merely repeated the initial coerced disclosure; court relied on corroboration of the crime rather than circumstances of disclosure	Trial court properly applied Ryan factors: no motive to lie, statements to Fry/Webster were spontaneous (open-ended, nonleading questions), multiple consistent disclosures supported reliability, and corroborative observations supported reliability of circumstances	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion admitting A.W.’s statements; Ryan factors considered under totality of circumstances

State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165 (1984) (establishes factors for reliability of child hearsay under RCW 9A.44.120)
State v. Swanson, 62 Wn. App. 186 (1991) (appellate review of trial court’s child-hearsay reliability finding is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Pham, 75 Wn. App. 626 (1994) (standards for reversing trial court child-hearsay rulings)
State v. Justiniano, 48 Wn. App. 572 (1987) (same; deference to trial court credibility assessments)
State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647 (2003) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Sanford, 128 Wn. App. 280 (2005) (prejudice standard for erroneous admission of evidence)
State v. Tharp, 96 Wn.2d 591 (1981) (outcome-determinative prejudice test)
State v. Young, 62 Wn. App. 895 (1991) (Ryan factors assessed under totality of circumstances)
State v. Borland, 57 Wn. App. 7 (1990) (limitations and interpretation of Ryan factors)
State v. Kennealv, 151 Wn. App. 861 (2009) (consistency of multiple statements supports reliability)
State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613 (1990) (timeliness and consistency reduce risk of faulty recollection)