State Of Washington v. Troy Arnold Muonio, 45016-0

Muonio engaged two teenage girls (MSE 16, DNR 15) in a hotel hot tub; he told them he was 23 and made sexually suggestive comments and contact.
He touched MSE’s breast, suggested naked pictures for money, and dared MSE to touch DNR’s breast; the girls reported the incident.
Charges included third degree child molestation (of DNR), communication with a minor for immoral purposes (DNR), and pre-arraignment violations of a SAPO; post-conviction SAPOs were issued for MSE and DNR.
The trial relied on Muonio’s statements about his age to prove age disparity for the child-molestation element; corpus delicti was not independently corroborated for age.
Pre-arraignment SAPO against MSE expired at arraignment; post-conviction SAPO against MSE was challenged; SAPO against DNR was contested for duration.
The court ultimately affirmed the conviction for third degree child molestation and immoral-purposes communication, but vacated pre-arraignment SAPO violations and vacated MSE post-conviction SAPO while affirming DNR’s post-conviction SAPO and remanding for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Corpus delicti applicability	Muonio’s age statement needed corroboration.	Statements about age before the act should not be barred by corpus delicti.	Corpus delicti did not bar age statements; no prejudice found; conviction affirmed.
Sufficiency of evidence for immoral purposes	Age-based and sexual-content assertions show unlawful intent.	Insufficient evidence that communications involved unlawful sexual conduct.	Sufficient evidence of immoral purpose; conviction affirmed.
Pre-arraignment SAPO applicability	Pre-arraignment SAPO could be valid beyond arraignment.	SAPO expired at arraignment; admission of SAPO violated rights.	Pre-arraignment SAPO expired at arraignment; prosecution convictions vacated.
Post-conviction SAPO authority for MSE	Court could protect MSE as a victim under post-conviction SAPO.	MSE was not a direct victim of the charged sex offense.	MSE cannot be a victim under post-conviction SAPO; vacated; otherwise, DNR SAPO affirmed with duration considerations.
Duration and scope of DNR post-conviction SAPO	Duration should align with the underlying conviction's period.	Sentence durations may extend SAPO expiration.	Expiration dates discussed; SAPO duration generally affirmed as within statutory limits; remanded for resentencing in light of partial reversal.

State v. Brockob, 159 Wn.2d 311 (2006) (corpus delicti corroboration required for elements after preface statements)
State v. Aten, 130 Wn.2d 640 (1996) (independent evidence needed for corpus delicti; prima facie sufficiency)
State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (2011) (ineffective assistance of counsel standard; prejudice required)
State v. Witherspoon, 171 Wn. App. 271 (2012) (corpus delicti rule timing: pre-crime statements not barred)
State v. Hosier, 157 Wn.2d 1 (2006) (immoral purposes defined as unlawful sexual conduct)
State v. Luther, 65 Wn. App. 424 (1992) (definition of immoral purposes; unlawful sexual conduct link)
City of Seattle v. May, 171 Wn.2d 847 (2011) (collateral bar rule; applicability to orders vs. applicability of orders)
State v. Ervin, 169 Wn.2d 815 (2010) (statutory interpretation standard; de novo review)
State v. Rice, 180 Wn. App. 308 (2014) (statutory interpretation; lenity in ambiguous statutes)
State v. Delgado, 148 Wn.2d 723 (2003) (strict construction of unambiguous criminal statutes)
State v. Pietrzak, 110 Wn. App. 670 (2002) (corpus delicti and pre-trial evidence considerations)