State of Washington v. Travis Lee Padgett, 32927-5

Background

In January 2013 Travis Padgett, who had custody of his 14-year-old son Henry, was investigated after Henry disclosed ongoing sexual abuse and drug use; police executed a search of Padgett's home and found sexual paraphernalia and two teen victims (Henry and Jack) plus a 14-year-old girl, Candace.
The State charged Padgett with 14 counts (rape/child molestation, incest, delivery of a controlled substance to minors, and communicating with a minor), alleging multiple incidents and special verdicts that the offenses were part of an ongoing pattern of sexual abuse and aggravated domestic violence for some counts.
At trial the jury convicted Padgett on 13 counts (acquitting on count 14); jurors found the ongoing-pattern aggravator and aggravated domestic violence aggravator on several counts; Padgett received an exceptional aggravated sentence of 360 months and $1,750 in LFOs.
Padgett appealed on multiple grounds, including insufficiency of evidence for two delivery charges (to Henry and to Candace), admissibility and confrontation issues for a hospital drug screen for Candace, double jeopardy from repetitive instructions, a defective jury instruction defining "prolonged period of time," LFO ability-to-pay inquiry failure, clerical errors, and alleged judicial fact-finding supporting the exceptional sentence.
The Court of Appeals reversed Padgett’s conviction for delivery of methamphetamine to Henry (insufficient identification of the substance), affirmed the other convictions, found the drug-screen admission proper (business-records exception; not testimonial), rejected the double-jeopardy claim, upheld the exceptional sentence on alternate grounds (multiple-offense policy), and remanded for correction of clerical errors and for proper LFO inquiry and sentencing clerical clarifications.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Padgett's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for delivery to Henry and Candace	Evidence (victim testimony about appearance, effects, and use) sufficed to prove meth delivery	Henry lacked experience to identify meth; no physical drug seized; Candace’s use not shown to be from Padgett	Conviction for delivery to Henry reversed (insufficient identification); conviction for delivery to Candace affirmed (her testimony sufficiently tied use to Padgett)
Admissibility / Confrontation of Candace’s hospital drug screen	Dr. Rivas could lay foundation under business-record exception; test was non‑testimonial so confrontation clause not violated	Lab technician did not testify; results thus testimonial and inadmissible under Confrontation Clause	Drug screen admissible as business record and non‑testimonial; admission did not violate confrontation rights
Double jeopardy / identical to-convict instructions	Jury instructions and prosecutor’s pinpointing of separate acts preserved separate-act unanimity	Identical to-convict instructions risked multiple punishments for the same act	No double jeopardy violation: instructions and record made clear each count required proof of a separate, particular act
Exceptional sentence / jury-findings and related sentencing errors (WPIC 300.17 "prolonged" instruction; LFOs; clerical errors)	Any one valid basis (jury-found aggravator) or operation of multiple-offense policy justified exceptional sentence; drug‑period instruction error harmless because alternative valid basis exists	Trial court’s unlawful "more than a few weeks" instruction and judicial fact-finding tainted exceptional sentence; LFO ability-to-pay not inquired; clerical errors present	Exceptional sentence upheld on independent multiple-offense policy ground; remand for (1) clarify/clarify scrivener citation and sentencing basis, (2) correct clerical errors, and (3) conduct individualized LFO ability-to-pay inquiry

Key Cases Cited

State v. Colquitt, 133 Wn. App. 789 (Wash. Ct. App.) (examples of evidence needed to identify a controlled substance)
In re Personal Restraint of Delmarter, 124 Wn. App. 154 (Wash. Ct. App.) (field test plus admission can sustain controlled-substance identification)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certificates and confrontation analysis)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (confrontation clause and forensic lab reports)
State v. Mutch, 171 Wn.2d 646 (Wash. 2011) (double jeopardy review and separate-act unanimity requirement)
State v. Brush, 183 Wn.2d 550 (Wash. 2015) (jury instruction defining "prolonged period of time" unlawfully comments on evidence)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Wash. 2015) (requirement of individualized inquiry into defendant's ability to pay LFOs)
State v. Gaines, 122 Wn.2d 502 (Wash. 1993) (appellate upholding of exceptional sentence if any stated reason is valid)