State of Washington v. William Mark Julian
33549-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- William Julian was charged with multiple sexual offenses against an eight‑year‑old child left in his care; at trial the child was found competent to testify and gave in‑court testimony.
- The State introduced the child's out‑of‑court statements under Washington’s child‑hearsay statute.
- The information was amended pretrial to elevate a misdemeanor communication with a minor to a felony based on Julian’s stipulated prior conviction for first‑degree child molestation.
- At trial the parties stipulated to the existence of a predicate sexual‑offense conviction; the jury was informed of the stipulation but was not given details of the prior offense.
- A jury convicted Julian of two counts of first‑degree child molestation and felony communication with a minor; as a persistent offender he received life sentences for the molestation counts and 60 months for the felony communication count.
- Julian appealed, raising claims about amendment of the information, disclosure of the predicate conviction, competency of the child witness, admissibility/reliability and ER 403 prejudice of child hearsay, and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Julian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Amendment of the information | Amendment was permissible and timely; any defense prejudice can be cured by continuance | Amendment prejudiced Julian because it exposed him to a potential life sentence | Court: Amendment allowed; harsher penalty alone is not the kind of prejudice that invalidates an amendment (affirmed) |
| 2) Stipulation to predicate offense / jury notice | Stipulation was proper and protected jury from details per Old Chief; jury may be told existence of prior | It was unfair to inform jury of a predicate sexual offense and to provide a special verdict form | Court: Stipulation handled appropriately; jury need not learn details; no error |
| 3) Competency of child witness | Child was competent under Allen factors; inconsistencies go to credibility | Child lacked memory, was coached, and therefore incompetent to testify | Court: Competency determination reviewed for abuse of discretion; record supports competence (no abuse) |
| 4) Admission and reliability of child‑hearsay; ER 403 prejudice; sufficiency | Out‑of‑court statements met reliability factors under RCW 9A.44.120; admission was not an impermissible comment; cumulative/ER403 objections were waived or meritless; jury could credit the child | Hearsay statements were unreliable, unduly prejudicial/cumulative and admission prejudiced the defense; testimony insufficient | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion on reliability; ER403 objection not preserved; admission not a comment on evidence; evidence sufficient — convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Purdom, 106 Wn.2d 745 (1986) (prejudice from amendment concerns defendant's ability to present a defense)
- State v. James, 108 Wn.2d 483 (1987) (possibility of a harsher penalty alone does not constitute specific prejudice)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (limitations on evidence about prior convictions when a stipulation will suffice)
- State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613 (1990) (standard for reviewing competency and reliability determinations for child witnesses)
- State v. Allen, 70 Wn.2d 690 (1967) (factors governing child witness competency)
- State v. Kennealy, 151 Wn. App. 861 (2009) (nonexclusive factors for assessing reliability of child hearsay)