State v. Hirschfelder, 242 P.3d 876

Hirschfelder, a 33-year-old choir teacher, engaged in sexual intercourse with a high school choir member A.N.T. who was 18 and about to graduate.
He was charged with sexual misconduct with a minor in the first degree under former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b).
Former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) criminalized sex between a school employee and a registered student aged at least 16 if the employee was 60 months older.
The statute defined a “minor” in this subsection as a registered student of the school who is at least 16 years old, and the registered student could be up to age 21.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the statute was ambiguous and likely limited to 16–17-year-old students; the State sought review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ‘minor’ in RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) includes registered students aged 18–21.	Hirschfelder argues ‘minor’ excludes 18+ students.	State argues ‘minor’ includes all registered students 16–21.	Yes; ‘minor’ includes registered students 16–21.
Whether the statute is plain and unambiguous or ambiguous, triggering lenity.	Hirschfelder contends ambiguity; lenity should resolve in his favor.	State contends plain meaning controls.	Unambiguous; lenity not triggered.
Whether the statute is void for vagueness or violates equal protection.	Hirschfelder contends vagueness and discriminatory impact.	Statute provides sufficient notice and rational basis; no equal protection violation.	Not vague; rational basis supports classification; no equal protection violation.
Whether RCW 9A.44.030(3)(d) (defense based on victim’s age) applies to this case.	Dissent argues affirmative defense under 9A.44.030(3)(d) applies to 18-year-old victims.	Majority holds defense not determinative for interpretation here.	Affirmative defense exists but majority does not apply it to defeat the charge.
Whether non-K-12 educators interacting with students are unfairly singled out under the statute.	Argues conduct outside K-12 settings (e.g., Running Start) should be treated differently.	Statute rationally targets school employees due to access and supervisory role.	Rational basis; statute constitutional.

Campbell v. Department of Ecology, 146 Wash.2d 1 (2002) (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning governs)
State v. J.P., 149 Wash.2d 444 (2003) (interpretation when applying statutory language and related provisions)
Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wash.2d 126 (2001) (sequence of related statutes; more specific vs. general rule applied later)
State v. Clinkenbeard, 130 Wash.App. 552 (2005) (rational basis for classifying public school employees)
State v. Gonzalez, 110 Wash.2d 738 (1988) (privacy rights and related constitutional considerations)
State v. Smith, 93 Wash.2d 329 (1980) (rational basis review standards for equal protection)
State v. Glas, 147 Wash.2d 410 (2002) (due process/vagueness standard for criminal statutes)