IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION ONE ,.-;
C3 ^iCT-
Respondent, No. 68815-4-1
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CO ~^V-:<
PETER JAMES CARR, 5 ic'
Appellant. FILED: February 18, 2014
Dwyer, J. — Peter Carr was arrested in connection with two incidents
involving young girls, both of which occurred in June 2011 at Federal Way thrift
stores. The first incident occurred when Carr rubbed his hand across 8-year-old
M.L.'s breast area. The second occurred when Carr asked 9-year-old K.W.
whether she liked the leotard he was holding, followed her from aisle to aisle, and
lowered his pants to expose his genitals encased in a "pink, sparkly bikini
bottom." Carr was charged with one count of child molestation in the first degree
and one count of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes.
Immediately prior to trial, Carr's attorney unsuccessfully moved to sever the
counts for trial. However, he did not renew this motion before or at the close of
the evidence. Ajury convicted Carr on both counts. We conclude that there was
sufficient evidence to support his convictions, that he received effective
No. 68815-4-1/2
assistance of counsel, and that the offense of communicating with a minor for
immoral purposes is not unconstitutionally vague. Thus, we affirm.
I
In June 2011, when 8-year-old M.L. was shopping at the Deseret
Industries thrift store with her mother and her two sisters, a man in the store
touched M.L.'s breast area over her shirt. M.L. testified that it was Carr who
touched her left breast with his right hand and that his hand "went across" her
breast for a period of one second. M.L. stated that Carr did not look at her, did
not say anything to her, and did not make any sounds during the encounter.1
After demonstrating in court the manner in which she had been touched and, in
response to the prosecutor's question, "[a]nd what you just demonstrated was
rubbing one hand across your breast?" M.L. answered affirmatively. Additionally,
prior to testifying in court, M.L. met with a child interview witness specialist and,
in a recorded interview, demonstrated five times how the man touched her.
During four ofthe demonstrations, M.L. quickly ran her hand over her breast
area, applying minimal pressure.2 However, during one of the demonstrations,
M.L. appeared to apply more pressure, and to move her hand back and forth
across her breast area. Also, during this interview, when asked how she was
touched, M.L. said, "He just rubbed like that." This recorded interview was
1Exhibit 4 is the compact disc recording of M.L.'s interview with a King County
Prosecutor's child interview witness specialist, which was viewed by the jury. The transcript of
that interview was marked as Exhibit 3 but not admitted into evidence.
2After the incident, but before being interviewed bythe witness specialist, M.L. also
demonstrated to her older sister how she had been touched, who described itas follows: "She
took her right hand and swiped itacross her chest."
No. 68815-4-1/3
shown to the jury.
After the incident, M.L. found her mother, Alma Lopez, at the store and
told Lopez that a man had touched her. Her mother did not report the incident to
the police or to store personnel at that time. Three days later, Lopez decided to
return to Deseret Industries with her daughters to see if M.L. would recognize the
man who had touched her. Although M.L. did not want to go to the store and
was visibly upset, once they were inside, she told Lopez that the man who had
touched her was in the store; however, she did not identify him.
Subsequently, Lopez returned to the store with her children several times.
During one visit, Lopez discovered that a man in the store was following them
and was staring at M.L. During a later visit, on June 17, 2011, M.L. identified
Carr as the man who had touched her, and Lopez notified a store employee who
called the manager. The manager approached Carr and said, "it's been reported
that you caused a disturbance in the store." Carr hastily left the store. The
police were called and officers came to the store and spoke to M.L. and her
family. One of the officers asked M.L. to show him how the man had touched her
and, obliging, she "used her right hand, open hand, and then rubbed it across her
breast line . .. [b]ack and forth a few times."
With regard to the touching of M.L., the State charged Carr by information
with child molestation alleged to have occurred between June 1 and June 10,
2011. At trial, Carr asserted an alibi defense but also testified that he had not
touched M.L. in the thrift store. Although neither Lopez nor Angelina—M.L.'s
older sister—could pinpoint the date ofthe incident during which M.L. was
-3-
No. 68815-4-1/4
touched, Lopez testified that it was on a Saturday between 11:30 a.m. and noon.
The testimony of two thrift store employees supported the conclusion that the
date of the incident had to have been either Saturday, June 4 or Saturday, June
11. The State requested, and was allowed, to amend the information to allege
that the crime took place between June 1 and June 14, 2011. In support of the
alibi defense, Carr's employer testified that Carr was working from 5 a.m. to 2
p.m. on both June 4 and June 11.
Soon after the incident involving M.L., a man lowered his pants and
exposed part of a women's bathing suit he was wearing to nine-year-old K.W.
while she was shopping at a Goodwill store with her mother. This took place on
either June 21 or June 29, 2011. K.W. was shopping in the girl's clothing section
and her mother was looking at women's clothing nearby. K.W. encountered a
man who showed her a leotard on a hanger and asked her if she liked it, adding
that he liked it. K.W. did not say anything to the man and walked away. She
went to a different aisle and the man followed her; she again went to a different
aisle and again the man followed her. At that point, K.W. testified, the man, who
was about 10 feet away, looked down and pulled his pants down to the end of his
underwear, which K.W. described as a "pink, sparkly bikini bottom." K.W. stated
that his pants were down for a few seconds, that he appeared to be "scratching
his butt," and that he was grinning. Additionally, K.W. thought he had pulled his
pants down on purpose. In response to the prosecutor's question, "Could you
see the man's privates?" K.W. said that she could not. However, K.W.'s mother,
in response to the prosecutor's question as to whether K.W. had been able to
-4-
No. 68815-4-1/5
see the man's genitalia, said that K.W. "said she could see the shape of it, with
the tight-fitting bikini bottom."
Following this incident, K.W. walked quickly back to her mother, who was
in the women's section of the store. Although she told her mother that a man
had talked to her, she waited until they had left the store to report that the man
had showed her his underwear. She waited, she explained, because she
considered it a private subject that was "weird" to talk about. Once they returned
home, K.W.'s mother called the police.
The police obtained surveillance video showing Carr entering the Goodwill
store at 3:56 p.m., leaving at 4:29 p.m., re-entering at 5:09 p.m., K.W. and her
mother entering at 5:15 p.m., and Carr leaving at 5:20 p.m.3 Police circulated an
alert to retail security with a still picture. On July 7, 2011, after Sears' security
staff recognized Carr, the police arrested him in his van in a nearby parking lot.
When he was arrested, Carr was wearing a bright pink women's swimsuit under
his clothing. Carr owned two women's one-piece bathing suits that he wore
under his clothing when he was at home and sometimes in public.
The King County Prosecutor charged Carr with one count of child
molestation in the first degree and one count of communicating with a minor for
immoral purposes. Prior to trial, Carr's attorney moved to sever the two charged
counts for trial. This motion was denied. Carr's attorney did not thereafter renew
3Although these times are three hours behind the time stamps reflected by the
surveillance video, Officer Kristopher Krusey explained that, during the course of his
investigation, he discovered that there was a three-hour discrepancy between the time stamp and
the actual time when the video was recorded. Report of Proceedings (March 28, 2012) at 749-
50.
No. 68815-4-1/6
the severance motion before or at the close of the evidence. The jury found Carr
guilty on both counts. The trial court imposed a sentence of a maximum of life in
prison with a minimum of 68 months of incarceration on the child molestation
charge and a consecutive 364-day suspended sentence on the charge of
communicating with a minor for immoral purposes.
Carr appeals.
II
Carr contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction of child molestation in the first degree. This is so, he avers, because
the State failed to prove that the touch over M.L.'s shirt was done for sexual
gratification. His contention is unavailing.
When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, "'the relevant
question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyonda reasonable doubt'" State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616
P.2d 628 (1980) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781,
61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979)). This appellate standard of review is designed to
ensure that the trial court fact finder reached the "subjective state of near
certitude of the guilt of the accused," required by the Fourteenth Amendment's
proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 315. When the
sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, all reasonable
inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted
most strongly against the defendant. State v. Salinas, 119Wn.2d 192, 201, 829
-6-
No. 68815-4-1/7
P.2d 1068 (1992). A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's
evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom. Salinas.
119 Wn.2d at 201. "Deference must be given to the trier of fact who resolves
conflicting testimony and evaluates the credibility of witnesses and
persuasiveness of material evidence." State v. Carver. 113 Wn.2d 591, 604, 781
P.2d 1308, 789 P.2d 306 (1989).
To convict Carr of child molestation in the first degree, the State was
required to prove that Carr had sexual contact with a child under the age of 12
who was not his wife or domestic partner and who was at least 36 months
younger than him. RCW 9A.44.083(1). The pertinent statute defines "sexual
contact" as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done
for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party or a third party." RCW
9A.44.010(2). The breast area is a sexual or intimate part of a person. State v.
Jackson. 145 Wn. App. 814, 819, 187 P.3d 321 (2008). Thus, the question is
whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any
rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Carr
touched M.L.'s breast area for the purpose of sexual gratification.4
4Pernicious language has been imported into the standard of review: specifically, that
evidence of sexual gratification is insufficient if itis "susceptible of innocent explanation." State v.
Powell. 62 Wn. App. 914, 918, 816 P.2d 86 (1991) (although the court recited the proper standard
at the beginning of its opinion, it later indicated that the evidence was insufficient because it was
"susceptible ofinnocent explanation"); State v. Whisenhunt, 96Wn. App. 18, 24, 980 P.2d 232
(1999) (distinguishing Powell by holding that the evidence was not open to innocent explanation);
State v. Price. 127Wn. App. 193, 202, 110 P.3d 1171 (2005) (also distinguishing Powell by
holding that the evidence was not "susceptible of innocent explanation"), aff'd on other grounds,
158Wn.2d 630, 146 P.3d 1183 (2006). If this were the standard, "child molestation convictions
would be subject to dismissal or reversal simply because a jury could believe a nonsexual
explanation for the behavior." State v. Veliz. 76 Wn. App. 775, 779 n.6, 888 P.2d 189 (1995).
-7-
No. 68815-4-1/8
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational
trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Carr touched M.L.'s
breast area for sexual gratification. "Proof that an unrelated adult with no
caretaking function has touched the intimate parts of a child supports the
inference the touching was for the purpose of sexual gratification." State v.
Powell. 62 Wn. App. 914, 917, 816 P.2d 86 (1991). However, "we require
additional proofof sexual purpose when clothes cover the intimate part touched."
State v. Harstad, 153 Wn. App. 10, 21, 218 P.3d 624 (2009). Rubbing of an
intimate area is sufficient additional proof to establish a sexual purpose. Harstad.
153 Wn. App. at 22. Here, the additional proof of sexual purpose is supplied by
evidence in the record that Carr rubbed his hand back and forth across M.L.'s
breast area.5 Thus, although M.L. was wearing a shirt that covered her breast
area, evidence that Carr rubbed his hand back and forth across her breast area
was sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State, to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Carr
touched M.L.'s breast area for sexual gratification.
Ill
Carr next contends that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial
to support his conviction of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes.
We adhere to the view we expressed in Veliz: "the correcttest is that recited by the Powell court
at the beginning ofits opinion: whether, as a matter oflaw, there is sufficient evidence from which
a rational trier of fact could find all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 62 Wn.
App. at 916." Veliz, 76 Wn. App. at 779 n.6.
5Although evidence as towhether this took place was in conflict, the evidence before the
jury was sufficient for the fact finder to find that this occurred. It is for the trial fact finder to
resolve conflicts in testimony. Carver, 113 Wn.2d at 604.
-8-
No. 68815-4-1/9
This is so, he avers, because there was insufficient evidence admitted to prove
that his communication with K.W. was for an immoral sexual purpose. We
disagree.
RCW 9.68A.090(1) reads, in pertinent part: "[A] person who
communicates with a minor for immoral purposes, or a person who
communicates with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral
purposes, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor." The word "communicate" means
spoken word or course of conduct. State v. Schimmelpfennig. 92 Wn.2d 95, 103-
04, 594 P.2d 442 (1979). See also State v. Jackman, 156 Wn.2d 736, 748, 132
P.3d 136 (2006) ("a defendant communicates with a minor under RCW
9.68A.090 if he or she invites or induces the minor to engage in prohibited
conduct"). Ultimately, "the statute prohibits communication with children for the
predatory purpose of promoting their exposure to and involvement in sexual
misconduct." State v. McNallie, 120 Wn.2d 925, 933, 846 P.2d 1358 (1993).
Accordingly, the question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a
reasonable doubt that Carr communicated with K.W. for the predatory purpose of
promoting her exposure to and involvement in sexual misconduct.
Viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the State, a rational
trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Carr communicated
with K.W. for the predatory purpose of promoting her exposure to and
involvement in sexual misconduct. Carr held up a leotard for K.W. to see and
asked her whether she liked it, adding that he did. When she moved away to a
-9-
No. 68815-4-1/10
different aisle without answering, he followed her. When she again moved away
to a different aisle, he again followed her. Finally, when he was a short distance
away, while grinning, he pulled down his pants and displayed his pink, sparkly6
women's bathing suit, which revealed the shape of his genitals. Based on this
set of circumstances, a rational trier of fact could conclude that Carr's actions
were meant to invite or induce K.W. to engage in prohibited conduct, thereby
promoting her exposure to and involvement in sexual misconduct.7
IV
Carr next contends that we should reverse his conviction on the charge of
communicating with a minor for immoral purposes, asserting that the statute is
unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct. This is evidenced, he argues,
by the jury's request for a definition of "immoral purposes ofa sexual nature."
We disagree.
We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. Citv of Spokane v.
Neff. 152 Wn.2d 85, 88, 93 P.3d 158 (2004). However, "[t]he mere need for
statutory construction does not render a statute unconstitutional." State v.
Evans, 177 Wn.2d 186, 203, 298 P.3d 724 (2013). It is presumed that a statute
is constitutional unless its unconstitutionality appears beyond a reasonable
doubt, a showing which must be made by the challenging party. Citv of Seattle v.
Eze, 111 Wn.2d 22, 26, 759 P.2d 366 (1988).
6The fact that the underwearwas pink is relevantas tending to show that Carr was using
it to attract children. See State v. Hosier, 157 Wn.2d 1, 13-14, 133 P.3d 936 (2006).
7In his statement of additional grounds, Carr asserts that there was insufficient evidence
to support his conviction of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. We reject his
duplicative argument.
-10-
No. 68815-4-1/11
"The due process vagueness doctrine seeks to ensure that the public has
adequate notice of what conduct is proscribed and to ensure that the public is
protected from arbitrary ad hoc enforcement." State v. Saunders. 132 Wn. App.
592, 599, 132 P.3d 743 (2006). "The vagueness doctrine is violated ifthe
provision (1) fails to define the criminal offense so that ordinary people can
understand what conduct is proscribed and (2) fails to provide ascertainable
standards of guilt to prevent arbitrary enforcement." Saunders, 132 Wn. App. at
599. However, "a statute is not unconstitutionally vague merely because a
person cannot predict with complete certainty the exact point at which his actions
would be classified as prohibited conduct." Eze, 111 Wn.2d at 27. Indeed, "'one
who deliberately goes perilously close to an area of proscribed conduct shall take
the risk that he may cross the line.'" Evans, 177 Wn.2d at 203 (quoting Bovce
Motor Lines. Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 340, 72 S. Ct. 329, 96 L. Ed.
367 (1952)). Consequently, "the presumption in favor ofa law's constitutionality
should be overcome only in exceptional cases." Eze, 111 Wn.2d at 28.
This is not an exceptional case. After being instructed that an essential
element of the crime of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes was
that Carr communicated with K.W. for "immoral purposes of a sexual nature," the
jury asked the judge to define "immoral purposes ofa sexual nature." The judge
declined to instruct the juryfurther. From this, Carr contends that "[t]he jury's
search for a definition of 'immoral purpose of a sexual nature' demonstrates the
vagueness of the term when applied to Mr. Carr's case." However, this inference
of unconstitutional vagueness that Carr urges us to draw belies the directive that
-11 -
No. 68815-4-1/12
we presume a statute to be constitutional. The jury's request for a more detailed
definition of one of the elements is open to any number of benign explanations.
It does not, however, demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute
fails to define the criminal offense so that ordinary people can understand what
conduct is proscribed. Neither does it establish that the statute fails to provide
ascertainable standards of guilt to prevent arbitrary enforcement.
Carr spoke to K.W. when they were alone, followed her repeatedly when
she moved away from him, and, grinning, pulled down his pants when he was
standing close to her, revealing the shape of his genitals encased in his tight pink
women's swimsuit bottom. An ordinary person would understand that Carr's
conduct was at least "perilously close to an area of proscribed conduct." See
Evans, 177 Wn.2d at 203. Accordingly, the statute is not unconstitutionally
vague as applied to him in these circumstances.
V
Carr next contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
This is so, he avers, because his counsel failed to renew his motion to sever the
two charged counts before or at the close of the evidence. Carr fails to establish
an entitlement to appellate relief on this claim.
"In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant must
demonstrate '(1) deficient performance, that his attorney's representation fell
below the standard of reasonableness, and (2) resulting prejudice that, but for
the deficient performance, the result would have been different."' State v.
Mullins, 158 Wn. App. 360, 371, 241 P.3d 456 (2010) (quoting State v. Hassan,
-12-
No. 68815-4-1/13
151 Wn. App. 209, 216-17, 211 P.3d 441 (2009)). In evaluating an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim, this court "must begin with 'a strong presumption
counsel's representation was effective' and must base its determination on the
record below." In re Pers. Restraint of Hutchinson. 147 Wn.2d 197, 206, 53 P.3d
17 (2002) (quoting State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 334-35, 899 P.2d 1251
(1995)). "The defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel 'must show in
the record the absence of legitimate strategic or tactical reasons supporting the
challenged conduct by counsel.'" Hutchinson. 147 Wn.2d at 206 (quoting
McFarland, 127 Wn.2d at 336).
The record supports the proposition that Carr's trial counsel had legitimate
tactical reasons for not renewing the motion to sever the two counts for trial.
First, as the case played out, the evidence against Carr on each count was not
overwhelming. On appeal, as to each count, Carr's appellate counsel advances
in good faith the argument that the evidence on both counts was constitutionally
insufficient. It is easy for us to envision Carr's trial counsel being of a like mind.
Carr's trial counsel could have been of the opinion that Carr would be acquitted
by the jury on each count—especially given the testimony admitted in support of
his alibi defense to the felony count. Given the evidence admitted, which the jury
was free to view in a manner beneficial to Carr (unlike an appellate court on
appeal), and given appellate counsel's good faith view of the evidence—that it
was constitutionally insufficient—Carr's trial counsel, for tactical reasons, may
have desired to proceed to a jury, on both counts, rather than risk retrial on either
count.
-13-
No. 68815-4-1/14
This was especially true with respect to the felony charge. At trial, the
testimony came out in a manner not anticipated by the prosecution, which forced
the prosecution to seek leave to amend the charging document. This
unanticipated testimony was consistent with Carr's alibi defense. Although
neither the State nor the court, on its own motion, could have moved to sever the
counts during trial without Carr's consent, CrR 4.4(c)(2)(ii), if Carr made such a
motion the decision would have been up to the trial judge. Carr could not control
the trial court's exercise of discretion as to which of the counts to sever for retrial
and which to allow to go to the jury for decision. It was a legitimate tactical
decision for Carr to wish to see the felony count—bolstered by the evidence
supporting his alibi defense—go to the jury.8
In short, trial counsel had reason to believe that the defense of the felony
count had gone better than anticipated. Similarly, for the same reasons that
appellate counsel possesses a good faith belief that the evidence on both counts
was weak, so can we envision Carr's trial counsel being of the same view. Thus,
we can envision legitimate tactical reasons for Carr's trial counsel opting to have
both counts proceed to verdict. Thus, Carr fails to establish deficient
8On appeal, Carr highlights certain evidence relevant to the communicating with a minor
charge: "The evidence that Mr. Carr was wearing a hot pink women's swim suit under his clothing
and that [the child] thought she saw him in a sparkly bikini bottom was too inflammatory to be
admitted in his trial for child molestation."
Had Carr renewed the motion to sever, the trial court—presented with this very
contention—may have agreed and ruled to sever the child molestation charge, allowing the
misdemeanor countto go to the jury. However, such a ruling would have deprived Carr of the
advantage gained from the unanticipated testimony as to the dates on which the touching ofM.L.
must have occurred. On a retrial, the State might be better prepared to meet the alibi defense.
Carr's trial counsel, who performed ably, could have had such tactical concerns in mind in
determining not to renew the motion to sever.
-14-
No. 68815-4-1/15
performance on the part of his trial counsel.9,10
VI
Carr next contends that prosecutorial misconduct denied him a fair trial.
This is so, he asserts, because during closing argument the prosecutor
improperly (1) misstated the burden of proof, (2) misrepresented the facts ofthe
case, and (3) made arguments that appealed to the jurors' fears and prejudices
about sex offenders. Again, Carr does not demonstrate an entitlement to
appellate relief.
To establish prosecutorial misconduct, Carr must first show that the
prosecutor's statements were improper, and then show that Carr was prejudiced
as a result. State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 759-65, 278 P.3d 653 (2012).
However, "[i]f the defendant did not object at trial, the defendant is deemed to
have waived any error, unless the prosecutor's misconduct was so flagrant and il
intentioned that an instruction could not have cured the resulting prejudice."
Emery, 174 Wn.2d at 760-61. Accord State v. McKenzie, 157 Wn.2d 44, 53 n.2,
9In his statement of additional grounds, Carr contends that hewas prejudiced by virtue of
the trial court denial ofhis original motion to sever. However, where a defendant does not renew
his or her motion to severcounts before or at the close ofthe evidence, the issue is waived and
we will address it only within the discussion of ineffective assistance of counsel. CrR 4.4(a);
State v. McDaniel. 155 Wn. App. 829, 858-59, 230 P.3d 245 (2010). Carr did not renew his
motion tosever before orat the close ofthe evidence. Thus, we do not consider whether the trial
court erred by denying his pretrial motion to sever.
10 In his statementof additional grounds, Carrasserts an alternate ground for his
ineffective assistance claim: specifically, that his counsel did not do as Carr requested on several
occasions These included failing to remind the jury of Carr's time cards showing that he worked
on June 4 and June 11, failing to remind the jury of facts relating to Carr's alibi and M.L.'s school
schedule, failing to provide Carr with the dates during which Carr's picture appeared on television
in relation to law enforcement seeking to apprehend him, and failing to provide Carr with a
physical copy of those broadcasts. However, because these arguments are not supported by
credible evidence in the record, we do not review them. State v. Alvarado. 164 Wn.2d 556, 569,
192 P.3d 345 (2008) (citing RAP 10.10(c)).
-15-
No. 68815-4-1/16
134 P.3d 221 (2006) (recognizing that "the absence of an objection by defense
counsel 'strongly suggests to a court that the argument or event in question did
not appear critically prejudicial to an appellant in the context of the trial'" (quoting
State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613, 661, 790 P.2d 610 (1990))). "Under this
heightened standard, the defendant must show that (1) 'no curative instruction
would have obviated any prejudicial effect on the jury' and (2) the misconduct
resulted in prejudice that 'had a substantial likelihood of affecting the jury
verdict.'" Emery. 174 Wn.2d at 761 (quoting State v. Thorgerson. 172 Wn.2d
438, 455, 258 P.3d 43 (2011)). In making this determination, we "focus less on
whether the prosecutor's misconduct was flagrant or ill intentioned and more on
whetherthe resulting prejudice could have been cured." Emery, 174 Wn.2d at
762.
First, Carr contends that the prosecutor misstated the burden of proof
during closing argument by saying, "If, as you sit in that deliberation room, you
can say, 'I believe [M.L.],' and you can say, 'I believe [K.W.],' that is enough to
end your inquiry. That is enough to convict the defendant." "[I]t is an
unassailable principle that the burden is on the State to prove every element and
that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. It is error for
the State to suggest otherwise." State v. Warren, 165 Wn.2d 17, 26-27, 195
P.3d 940 (2008). Although Carr did not object to the prosecutor's statement, he
is correct that the prosecutor's statement was improper. However, prior to
closing argument, the jury had been properly instructed as to the burden of proof
16
No. 68815-4-1/17
and the definition of reasonable doubt.11 Had Carr interposed an objection and
11 The pertinent language from the jury instructions is as follows:
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. That plea puts in issue
every element of each crime charged. The State is the plaintiff and has the
burden of proving each element of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The
defendant has no burden of proving that a reasonable doubt exists as to these
elements.
A reasonable doubt is one for which a reason exists and may arise from
the evidence or lack of evidence. It is such a doubt as would exist in the mind of
a reasonable person after fully, fairly, and carefully considering all of the
evidence or lack of evidence. If, from such consideration, you have an abiding
belief in the truth of the charge, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jury Instruction 2.
To convict the defendant of the crime of child molestation in the first
degree, as charged in Count I, each ofthe following elements of the crime must
be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That during a period oftime intervening between June 1, 2011
through June 14, 2011, the defendant had sexual contact with M.V.L.;
(2) That M.V.L. was less than twelve years old at the time ofthe sexual
contact and was not married to the defendant and was not in a state registered
domestic partnership with the defendant;
(3) That M.V.L. was at leastthirty-six months younger than the
defendant; and
(4) That this act occurred in the State ofWashington.
If you find from the evidence that each ofthese elements has been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of
guilty as to Count I.
On the other hand, if, after weighing all the evidence you have a
reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then itwill be your duty to
return a verdict of not guilty as to Count I.
Jury Instruction 8.
To convict the defendant of the crime of communicating with a minor for
immoral purposes, as charged in Count II, each ofthe following elements ofthe
crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about June 29, 2011, the defendant communicated with
K.W. for immoral purposes of a sexual nature;
(2) That K.W. was a minor; and
(3) That this act occurred in the State of Washington.
If you find from the evidence that each ofthese elements has been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of
guilty as to Count II.
On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a
reasonable doubt as to any one ofthese elements, then it will be your duty to
return a verdict of not guilty as to Count II.
17
No. 68815-4-1/18
requested a curative instruction, the court could easily have instructed the jury to
be guided by its prior instructions. Because the asserted error could have been
remedied by a curative instruction, Carr is not entitled to appellate relief.12
Next, Carr contends that the prosecutor misrepresented the facts of the
case during closing argument. Specifically, Carr objects to the prosecutor's use
of the word "groped" when describing Carr's contact with M.L., and the
prosecutor's use ofthe word "exposed" when describing Carr's lowering of his
pants in close proximity to K.W. "The propriety of a prosecutor's conduct is
'reviewed in the context of the total argument, the issues in the case, the
evidence addressed in the argument, and the instructions given.'" State v. Reed.
168 Wn. App. 553, 577, 278 P.3d 203 (quoting State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24,
85-86, 882 P.2d 747 (1994)), review denied, 176Wn.2d 1009, 290 P.3d 995
(2012). "In closing argument, a prosecutor is afforded wide latitude to draw and
express reasonable inferences from the evidence." Reed, 168 Wn. App. at 577.
The prosecutor did not misrepresent facts. Carr's claim oferror stems
from his misapprehension of the evidence in the record. As explained, there was
evidence in the record that Carr rubbed his hand back and forth across M.L.'s
breastarea, and that Carr lowered his pants to reveal the shape of his genitals to
K.W. The prosecutor's use of the word "groped" is supported by the evidence of
Carr rubbing his hand back and forth across M.L.'s breast area. The
prosecutor's use of the word "exposed," taken in context, does not suggest an
Jury Instruction 11. .
12 In his statement ofadditional grounds, Carr asserts that the prosecutor misstated the
burden of proof. We reject his duplicative argument.
-18-
No. 68815-4-1/19
assertion that Carr exposed his bare genitals; instead, K.W.'s mother was
asserting that he exposed the shape of his genitals beneath his tight swimsuit,
which is supported by evidence in the record. It was reasonable, therefore, for
the prosecutor to argue from this evidence that Carr "groped" M.L. and "exposed"
himself to K.W. Accordingly, the prosecutor's conduct was not improper.13
Next, Carr contends that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors'
fears and prejudices about sex offenders when she punctuated her rebuttal
argument with the statement: "He is the guy that parents warn their kids about.
Find him guilty."
"Prosecutors have a duty to seek verdicts free from appeals to passion or
prejudice." State v. Perez-Meiia. 134Wn. App. 907, 915, 143 P.3d 838 (2006).
"Accordingly, a prosecutor engages in misconduct when making an argument
that appeals to jurors' fear and repudiation of criminal groups or invokes racial,
ethnic, or religious prejudice as a reason to convict." Perez-Meiia, 134 Wn. App.
at 916. However, "[t]he propriety of a prosecutor's conduct is 'reviewed in the
context of the total argument, the issues in the case, the evidence addressed in
the argument, and the instructions given.'" Reed, 168 Wn. App. at 577 (quoting
Russell, 125 Wn.2d at 85-86). Because Carr's counsel did not object at trial, any
error was waived "unless the prosecutor's misconduct was so flagrant and ill
intentioned that an instruction could not have cured the resulting prejudice."
Emery, 174 Wn.2d at 760-61.
13 In his statement ofadditional grounds, Carr also objects to the prosecutor's use ofthe
words "groped" and "fondled." We reject his duplicative argument.
-19-
No. 68815-4-1/20
Although the prosecutor's conduct here was not as egregious as in Perez-
Meiia, where the prosecutor improperly exhorted the jury to convict the defendant
in order to send a message to gangs, the prosecutor's statement was improper.
While only a small portion of the argument was inflammatory, considered in light
of the issues in the case—notably, that the two incidents showed a propensity to
prey on children—this appeal to the jurors' aversion toward pedophiles was
magnified. Accordingly, the prosecutor's statement was improper.
Nevertheless, Carr is not entitled to appellate relief. Unlike in Perez-Meiia,
here there was no objection interposed to the improper argument. Had there
been such an objection, the trial court could have issued a proper curative
instruction. We are not convinced that the challenged conduct was so flagrant
and ill-intentioned that such a curative instruction would not have constituted an
adequate remedy.
VII
Carr makes a number of contentions in his statement of additional
grounds that were not made by his attorney on appeal. None are availing.
Carr contends that law enforcement officers failed to collect exonerating
evidence, requiring that the child molestation case be dismissed. This is so, he
asserts, because the officer who was called to Deseret Industries on June 17,
2011, failed to secure the surveillance video from June 3 to June 17. There is no
trial court record with respect to this claim. Thus, there is nothing for us to
review. No entitlement to appellate relief is established.
Carr next contends that the probable cause determination was improperly
-20-
No. 68815-4-1/21
made with respect to the incident involving M.L. This is so, he avers, because
the certification for determination of probable cause describes Carr as "rubbing"
M.L.'s breast, which is not how the dispatched officer described what happened.
However, because Carr did not raise this issue in the trial court, there is no
record for us to review. Again, no entitlement to appellate relief has been
established.
Carr next raises several issues that, in effect, contend that there was a
conspiracy between the prosecutor and his defense attorney to suppress certain
evidence. However, because these arguments are not supported by credible
evidence in the record, we do not review them. State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d
556, 569, 192 P.3d 345 (2008) (citing RAP 10.10(c)).
Carr next offers affidavits from his sister and mother, wherein they both
assert that a juror approached them and spoke with them regarding the jury's
deliberation following the verdict. Because these arguments are not supported
by credible evidence in the record, we do not review them. Alvarado. 164Wn.2d
at 569 (citing RAP 10.10(c)).
Carr next contends that the charge of communicating with a minor for
immoral purpose should be dismissed. The basis for this contention is his
assertion that initially the police did not have any evidence that Carr had
committed the crime. In essence, Carr appears to be challenging the trial court's
denial of his Knapstad14 motion. However, the denial of a Knapstad motion is not
appealable after a trial has been conducted. State v. Olson, 73 Wn. App. 348,
14 State v. Knapstad. 107 Wn.2d 346, 729 P.2d 48 (1986).
-21 -
No. 68815-4-1/22
357 n.6, 869 P.2d 110(1994). Thus, we do not further consider Carr's
contention.
Finally, Carr contends that M.L.'s mother testified untruthfully. Credibility
determinations are the province of the trial court fact finder. Carver, 113 Wn.2d
at 604.
Affirmed.
We concur:
U'JJ lkck*£, J. -
22
State Of Washington v. Peter James Carr
Combined Opinion