State Of Washington v. Dereje Kebede ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) No. 77445-0-I
Respondent,
) DIVISION ONE
v.
)
DEREJE ASRAT DEGFU, AKA
DEREJE YAKAYO KEBEDE,
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. ) FILED: September 23, 2019
SMITH, J. — Dereje Kebede,1 an off-the-clock Uber driver, picked up 22-
year-old J.A. from a taco stand at a known party spot on Capitol Hill at 1:55 am.,
drove her to a motel in Tukwila, and tried to have sex with her while she was
incapacitated. Kebede testified J.A. was not drunk and she initiated and
consented to sexual intercourse. A jury did not accept Kebede’s testimony and
convicted him of attempted second degree rape.
On appeal, Kebede argues that the State failed to prove he believed J.A.
was incapacitated. But given the overwhelming evidence of J.A.’s obvious
intoxication, sufficient evidence supports his conviction. The same overwhelming
evidence supports a conclusion that any ambiguity within the jury instructions
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We also reject Kebede’s claims of
1 Although the State charged the defendant as “Dereje Asrat Degfu,”
counsel for appellant and counsel for respondent refer to appellant’s last name
as “Kebede.” We therefore refer to appellant as “Kebede” throughout the
opinion.
No. 77445-0-1/2
prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper
exclusion of evidence. Finally, none of the issues in Kebede’s statement of
additional grounds for review (SAG) warrant reversal. We affirm Kebede’s
conviction but remand to the trial court to strike Kebede’s court costs from his
judgment and sentence due to his indigency at the time of sentencing.
FACTS
On March 28, 2015, J.A. worked a double shift until around 10:00 p.m.
and then met her friends at a nightclub on Capitol Hill to celebrate her 22nd
birthday. J.A., who weighed about 120 pounds, did not have time to eat that
night, and after consuming Red Bull and vodka, shots, and beer, she blacked
out. While in the nightclub, J.A. lost her cell phone. She was later kicked out of
the club and a black ‘X” was drawn on her hand, signifying that she was too
intoxicated to reenter the club.
Kebede, an Uber driver, dropped off his last passenger at 1:46 am. and
signed off of the Uber application. He picked up J.A. at 1:55 a.m. while she was
eating a taco in front of a taco truck. J.A. was trying to flag down a taxi in front of
Kebede, but he honked so that the taxi would drive off and J.A. would get in his
car. Kebede believed J.A. wanted to go to Des Moines, south of Seattle, but he
drove her northeast to the Washington Park Arboretum (Arboretum Park). At the
park, she looked for her lost cell phone in his car and urinated in some nearby
bushes. Kebede then drove J.A. down Martin Luther King Jr. Way from Seattle
to a motel in Tukwila, where he attempted to have sex with her but could not
maintain an erection.
2
No. 77445-0-1/3
The next morning, J.A. awoke in the motel, still intoxicated, and did not
know where she was or who Kebede was. Kebede told her that they had sex.
J.A. used Kebede’s phone to call a friend and Kebede dropped off J.A. at that
friend’s house. After processing that she had been raped, J.A. ran out of the
house into the front yard and was kneeling and lying on the ground, screaming
and hysterical. A police officer saw J.A. and offered assistance. After speaking
with the officer, J.A. decided to go to the hospital for a sexual assault evaluation.
The exam revealed Kebede’s saliva DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) on J.A.’s
vaginal area as well as several vaginal injuries.
The State charged Kebede with attempted second degree rape. Kebede
gave a statement to police that was videotaped and later admitted at trial. At
trial, Kebede testified that J.A. was not drunk and that she initiated their sexual
encounter. A jury convicted him as charged. Kebede appeals.
ANALYSIS
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Kebede argues that the State presented insufficient evidence that he
intended to have intercourse with a mentally incapacitated person and, therefore,
his conviction should be reversed. We disagree.
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State and determine whether any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. State v. Townsend, 147 Wash. 2d 666, 679, 57 P.3d 255 (2002). A
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence admits the truth of the evidence.
3
No. 77445-0-1/4
State v. Salinas, 119 Wash. 2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). Further, “all
reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and
interpreted most strongly against the defendant.” Salinas, 119 Wash. 2d at 201. “In
determining the sufficiency of the evidence, circumstantial evidence is not to be
considered any less reliable than direct evidence.” State v. Delmarter, 94 Wash. 2d
634, 638, 618 P.2d 99(1980).
“A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, with intent to commit
a specific crime, he or she does any act which is a substantial step toward the
commission of that crime.” ROW 9A.28.020(1). “A person is guilty of rape in the
second degree when . . . the person engages in sexual intercourse with another
person . . . [w]hen the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being .
mentally incapacitated.” RCW 9A.44.050(1)(b). “Mental incapacity’ is that
condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from
understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse
whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance
or from some other cause.” ROW 9A.44.01 0(4). Therefore, to commit the crime
of attempted rape in the second degree, “the defendant must intend to have
intercourse with a victim incapable of consent.” State v. Weaville, 162 Wash. App.
801, 816, 256 P.3d 426 (2011).
Second degree rape is a strict liability crime because it has no mens rea.
Ct State v. Deer, 175 Wash. 2d 725, 731, 287 P.3d 539 (2012) (“As a strict liability
crime, child rape in the third degree requires no proof of mens rea.”). In other
words, the defendant’s “knowledge” of the victim’s incapacity is not a statutory
4
No. 77445-0-1/5
element of second degree rape. State v. Lough, 70 Wash. App. 302, 328 n.20, 853
P.2d 920 (1993), affd, 125 Wash. 2d 847, 889 P.2d 487 (1995). Therefore, a
defendant may assert an affirmative defense and “prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that at the time of the offense the defendant reasonably believed
that the victim was not mentally incapacitated.” RCW 9A.44.030(1).
But when the crime is not completed and is charged as attempted second
degree rape, there is a mens rea requirement because the State must prove that
the defendant intended to have intercourse with a victim who is incapable of
consent. Weaville, 162 Wash. App. at 816. Washington “require[sJ the highest
possible mental state for criminal attempt because criminal attempt focuses on
the dangerousness of the actor, not the act.” State v. Johnson, 173 Wash. 2d 895,
905, 270 P.3d 591 (2012). Therefore, it is not sufficient for the State to prove
only that the defendant intended to have sexual intercourse. The State must
prove that the defendant intended to have sexual intercourse with an
incapacitated victim. Cl~ Johnson, 173 Wash. 2d at 907 (disapproving of the
statement in State v. Chhom, 128 Wash. 2d 739, 743, 911 P.2d 1014 (1996), that
defined the criminal result of rape of a child as sexual intercourse alone). That
said, intent “may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
commission of an act or acts.” State v. Bergeron, 105 Wash. 2d 1, 19, 711 P.2d
1000 (1985); State v. Abuan, 161 Wash. App. 135, 155, 257 P.3d 1(2011)
(Criminal intent may be inferred “from conduct that plainly indicates such intent
as a matter of logical probability.”).
5
No. 77445-0-1/6
In Johnson, the State charged the defendant with attempted promotion of
commercial sexual abuse of a minor. Johnson, 173 Wash. 2d at 909. There, the
minor victims were fictitious and the actual communications for which the
defendant was prosecuted occurred with adult women posing as minors.
Johnson, 173 Wash. 2d at 897. The Supreme Court held that its statement in State
v. Patel, 170 Wash. 2d 476, 485, 242 P.3d 856 (2010), that “a defendant who
attempts to have sex with a person he believes is underage but is actually an
adult may not be convicted” of attempted child rape, was dicta. Johnson, 173
Wash. 2d at 904. It clarified that “[tjhe State must prove the age of the intended
victim to prove that the defendant intended to have sexual intercourse with a
child.” Johnson, 173 Wash. 2d at 908. Similarly, to obtain a conviction for
attempted second degree rape, the State must prove that the defendant intended
to have intercourse with an incapacitated person.
Here, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there
was sufficient evidence that Kebede intended to have intercourse with a person
who was incapable of consent. J.A. testified that she blacked out at the
nightclub, was kicked out, and had a black ‘X” on her wrist. One of J.A.’s friends
testified that J.A. seemed very drunk and was hanging onto a friend for support
outside of the nightclub after she was kicked out. Kebede testified that he turned
off his Uber application just before he picked up J.A. in front of a taco stand on
Capitol Hill. Instead of driving south and taking J.A. to Des Moines, where he
believed she lived, he drove her northeast to Arboretum Park, where J.A.
urinated in the bushes and looked for her lost phone in his car. Kebede admitted
6
No. 77445-0-1/7
that he told a detective that when he picked up J.A., she was “tipsy,” would have
been over the legal limit to drive, and was acting unlike “99 percent” of his other
passengers. From this evidence, a rational juror could reasonably have inferred
from the surrounding facts and circumstances that Kebede intended to have
intercourse with J.A. while she was incapacitated. Although Kebede testified that
J.A. was not drunk, the jury, who was in the best position to weigh the credibility
and persuasiveness of Kebede’s perceptions, clearly did not believe him.
Kebede argues that the evidence was insufficient because there was
contradicting testimony regarding the level of J.A.’s intoxication. But on a
sufficiency challenge, all evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to
the State. The evidence outlined above, when taken in the light most favorable
to the State, was sufficient to prove that Kebede believed J.A. was intoxicated
and incapable of consent.
Jury Instructions
Kebede argues that his right to due process was violated because the jury
instructions failed to clarify that the jury needed to find that he intended to have
sex with an incapacitated person. Because any error was harmless, we
disagree.
“We review alleged errors of law in jury instructions de novo.” State v.
Nelson, 191 Wash. 2d 61, 69, 419 P.3d 410 (2018) (quoting State v. Boss, 167
Wash. 2d 710, 716, 223 P.3d 506 (2009)). “An omission or misstatement of the law
in a jury instruction that relieves the State of its burden to prove every element of
the crime charged is erroneous.” Nelson, 191 Wash. 2d at 69 (quoting State v.
7
No. 77445-0-1/8
Thomas, 150 Wash. 2d 821, 844, 83 P.3d 970 (2004)). “The standard for clarity in a
jury instruction is higher than for a statute” because “a jury lacks . . . interpretive
tools and thus requires a manifestly clear instruction.” State v. LeFaber, 128
Wash. 2d 896, 902, 913 P.2d 369 (1996), abrogated on other grounds ~y State v.
O’Hara, 167 Wash. 2d 91, 217 P.3d 756 (2009). ‘[Am omission or misstatement
may nevertheless be subject to harmless error analysis.” Nelson, 191 Wash. 2d at
69. An omission or misstatement is harmless if it appears beyond a reasonable
doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.
Nelson, 191 Wash. 2d at 69.
LeFaber is instructive here. In that case, the trial court gave the jury the
pattern instruction on self-defense, which separated the terms “reasonably
believed” and “imminent danger” in separate subsections. LeFaber, 128 Wash. 2d
at 901. The Supreme Court held that the grammatical structure of the instruction
created an ambiguity that “permit[ed] an erroneous interpretation of the law.”
LeFaber, 128 Wash. 2d at 902. The court reasoned that “[a]lthough a juror could
read instruction 20 to arrive at the proper law, the offending sentence lacks any
grammatical signal compelling that interpretation over the alternative, conflicting,
and erroneous reading.” LeFaber, 128 Wash. 2d at 902-03.
The same is true here, where the trial court gave this to-convict
instruction, which is based on the pattern instruction:
To convict the defendant of the crime of Attempted Rape in
the Second Degree, each of the following elements of the crime
must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That between the dates of March 28, 2015 and March 29,
2015, the defendant did an act that was a substantial step toward
the commission of rape in the second degree;
8
No. 77445-0-1/9
(2) That the act was done with the intent to commit rape in
the second degree; and
(3) That the act occurred in the State of Washington.
If you find from the evidence that each of these elements
has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your
duty to return a verdict of guilty.
On the other hand, if, after weighing all the evidence, you
have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it
will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
A previous instruction stated that “[a] person commits the crime of rape in the
second degree when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person when
the other person is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally
incapacitated.”
Although the to-convict instruction properly states the intent element, the
separation of the definition of second degree rape from the intent element
creates an ambiguity. As discussed in the previous section, the State must prove
that Kebede intended to have intercourse with an incapacitated person. But the
jury could have read the instructions to require it to find only that Kebede
intended to have intercourse with J.A. when she was incapacitated, without
believing that she was incapacitated. Put another way, it is not clear from the
instructions that Kebede must have intended to have intercourse with a person
who he believed was incapacitated, and not just a person who happens to be
incapacitated.
This analysis is consistent with our decision in In re Personal Restraint of
Hubert, 138 Wash. App. 924, 158 P.3d 1282 (2007), an attempted second degree
rape case where the victim was asleep and helpless, rather than incapacitated.
Although that case considered whether defense counsel was ineffective for
9
No. 77445-0-1110
failing to request an affirmative defense instruction, its analysis of the to-convict
instruction is helpful. We explained:
There is no intent element for rape. To commit an attempt,
however, the defendant must intend to commit the crime charged.
Here, that means the defendant must intend to have intercourse
with a victim incapable of consent. The jury was so instructed. But
this did not illuminate for the jury whether the defendant must be
found to intend intercourse with a person he knows to be helpless,
or merely intercourse with a person who happens to be helpless
whether or not the defendant realizes it. The jury was unaware that
if Hubert reasonably believed Wood had capacity to consent, his
belief constituted a defense to the charge. The jury thus had no
way to understand the legal significance of the evidence supporting
the reasonableness of Hubert’s belief that Wood was awake and
capable of consenting to his advances. The attempt instruction
does nothing to cure the absence of the reasonable belief
instruction.
Hubert, 138 Wash. App. at 931-32 (footnote omitted). As in Hubert, the instructions
here did not make clear to the jury that intending to have intercourse with a
person who happens to be incapacitated is not sufficient to convict.
The State argues that Kebede’s reliance on Hubert and Johnson is “out of
context” because neither case reversed on the grounds of an instructional error.
In Hubert, the issue was whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to
propose an affirmative defense instruction, and in Johnson, the issue was
whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant. While these
cases may not constitute controlling authority on the propriety of the instruction
given here, they are persuasive because they address what the State must prove
and why the pattern instructions might be confusing. Therefore, the State’s
attempt to distinguish these cases is not persuasive.
10
No. 77445-0-Ill I
Because the instruction was ambiguous, we must next consider whether
the ambiguity was harmless. An omission or misstatement is harmless if it
appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not
contribute to the verdict obtained. Nelson, 191 Wash. 2d at 69.
During oral argument, the State argued that the ambiguity was harmless,
and we agree that there was overwhelming evidence from which the jury could
have found Kebede reasonably believed that J.A. was intoxicated and unable to
consent. Although Kebede maintained J.A. was not drunk and did consent to
intercourse, the evidence presented established that he intended to have
intercourse with her while believing she was incapacitated such that any
instructional ambiguity was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
For example, Kebede’s own testimony is evidence that he intended to
have intercourse with J.A. while she was obviously intoxicated. Kebede testified
that he dropped off his last passenger at 1:46 am. and signed off of the Uber
application. Kebede then picked J.A. up at 1:55 a.m. on Capitol Hill at a known
party spot. Even though J.A. was trying to flag down a taxi in front of him,
Kebede honked so that the taxi would drive off and J.A. would get into his car.
Kebede explained that passengers who are drunk throw up, converse
inappropriately, and complain that he is not going the right direction. Although he
asserted that J.A. was not drunk, Kebede stated that once J.A. got in the car, she
began “messing around” and telling him “go straight. Go right. Go Left.” He
also said that although “99 percent [of passengers] are respectful and talk to you
properly; she’s above that.” He testified that J.A. also sat in his front seat and
11
No. 77445-0-1/12
held his hand, whereas most customers sit in the back. Kebede then testified he
followed J.A.’s nonsensical directions and drove northeast to Arboretum Park,
which is in the opposite direction of J.A.’s alleged destination. J.A.’s failure to
give accurate directions makes no sense if she were sober. When they stopped
at the park, J.A. searched the car for her cell phone, even looking for it in his
glove box (where it could not have been) and urinated in the nearby bushes.
Furthermore, Kebede admitted that he thought J.A. had been drinking.
Specifically, he testified that although he could not tell whether J.A. had any
alcohol, he “guess{ed] maybe she had some.” Previously, he told a detective
that she was “tipsy.”
Kebede’s testimony describes the behavior of someone who was
extremely intoxicated. Despite his self-serving statements that he did not believe
J.A. was intoxicated, the rest of his testimony is evidence that he believed she
was. This, combined with the fact that she was kicked out of the nightclub and
had a large “X” on her hand, is overwhelming evidence that Kebede believed J.A.
was intoxicated and unable to consent. Therefore, the trial court’s failure to more
clearly instruct thejury that it must find he intended to have intercourse with an
incapacitated person was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kebede argues that the instructions were prejudicial because there was
conflicting evidence about how drunk J.A. was and Kebede’s own behavior was
consistent with consent. We disagree.
First, Kebede places too much weight on the other club-goers’ testimony.
It is true that one of J.A.’s friends from that night testified that he told a detective
12
No. 77445-0-1/13
that J.A. “didn’t sound crazy” that night. But when asked what he meant by
“crazy,” the witnesses stated, “She didn’t seem—I mean, she seemed drunk, yes;
but was she out of her mind, completely crazy, no. I’ve never seen—you don’t
see people like that. She wasn’t on drugs or anything.” Another witness
reported that J.A. seemed “pretty normal” that night and he did not remember
anyone “getting out of hand.” But he also admitted that he “d[idjn’t know [J.A.]
well enough.” Finally, a witness who was not drinking that night testified that she
had a one minute conversation with J.A. after 10:30 p.m. and J.A. did not appear
“wasted.” But that witness also testified that she had no information about how
intoxicated J.A. was later in the night when J.A. left the club. None of this
testimony, when taken in context, directly conflicts with the other overwhelming
evidence of J.A.’s obvious intoxication.
Second, Kebede’s behavior was not consistent with consent. Although he
stayed the night with J.A., let her use his phone, gave her a ride home, and later
cooperated with police, the morning after the attempted rape, he lied to J.A.,
telling her that they met at a bar the night before, that he was not an Uber driver,
and that they had sex. Presumably, he told these lies in order to conceal his
activities from the previous night. Furthermore, Kebede’s bold-faced lies indicate
that he believed J.A. was too drunk to remember what happened. For these
reasons, Kebede has not shown that he was prejudiced.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Kebede argues that defense counsel was ineffective for withdrawing a
statutory affirmative defense instruction that the jury could acquit if he proved by
13
No. 77445-0-1/14
a preponderance of the evidence that he believed J.A. was not mentally
incapacitated. We disagree.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant
must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient
performance prejudiced him. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104
S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d 322, 334-
35, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). “Performance is deficient if it falls ‘below an objective
standard of reasonableness based on consideration of all the circumstances.”
State v. Estes, 188 Wash. 2d 450, 458, 395 P.3d 1045 (2017) (quoting McFarland,
127 Wash. 2d at 334-35). There is a strong presumption that counsel’s
representation was reasonable and that performance is not deficient if counsel’s
conduct can be characterized as legitimate trial strategy or tactics. Estes, 188
Wash. 2d at 458.
A defendant accused of second degree rape can raise an affirmative
defense that “at the time of the offense the defendant reasonably believed that
the victim was not mentally incapacitated.” RCW 9A.44.030(1). The affirmative
defense must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
RCW 9A.44.030(1).
Here, defense counsel proposed an instruction on this affirmative defense
but later requested that it be removed from the jury instructions. This decision
was a legitimate trial strategy. The affirmative defense is available for the crime
of second degree rape because that crime has no mens rea. But the affirmative
defense is not necessary for the crime of attempted second degree rape because
14
No. 77445-0-1/15
the State must prove that the defendant intended to have intercourse with an
incapacitated person, which necessitates a finding that the defendant believed
the victim was incapacitated. Ct Johnson, 173 Wash. 2d at 907. In this
circumstance, use of the affirmative defense would have shifted the burden from
the State to Kebede to prove that he did not believe that J.A. was incapacitated.
Because the State bore the burden to prove that Kebede believed J.A. was
incapacitated beyond a reasonable doubt, defense counsel legitimately withdrew
the affirmative defense instruction that would have shifted that burden of proof
from the State to Kebede.
Kebede argues that Hubert requires reversal. There, the defendant was
also charged with attempted second degree rape. Despite evidence that the
defendant believed the victim consented to a sexual encounter, defense counsel
did not argue that this constituted an affirmative defense or request an instruction
on the affirmative defense. Hubert, 138 Wash. App. at 929. Defense counsel
admitted that he failed to do so because he was not familiar with the defense.
Hubert, 138 Wash. App. at 929. We held that defense counsel’s performance was
deficient. Hubert, 138 Wash. App. at 930. But Hubert was decided before Johnson
clarified that the State must prove a higher mens rea for attempted second
degree rape than for second degree rape. Furthermore, defense counsel in
Hubert admitted that his failure to request the affirmative defense instruction was
not a trial tactic. Here, defense counsel was very familiar with the affirmative
defense and the holding in Johnson and made a strategic decision to leave the
15
No. 77445-0-1116
burden of proving Kebede’s belief of J.A.’s state of intoxication with the State.
Hubert does not require reversal.
Kebede also cites State v. Powell, 150 Wash. App. 139, 206 P.3d 703
(2009), as requiring reversal. There, the defendant was charged with second
degree rape, and the Court of Appeals held that defense counsel deficiently
failed to request the affirmative defense instruction. Powell, 150 Wash. App. at
155. But here Kebede was charged with attempted second degree rape. As
already explained, Johnson requires that the State prove Kebede intended to
have intercourse with an incapacitated J.A. This is an additional mens rea
element not found in second degree rape. Therefore, Kebede’s counsel was not
deficient in choosing to hold the State to its burden, rather than shift it to Kebede.
Powell does not require reversal.
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Kebede argues that the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by
repeatedly misstating the law in closing argument. We disagree.
“To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must
establish ‘that the prosecutor’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial in the
context of the entire record and the circumstances at trial.” State v. Thorcierson,
172 Wash. 2d 438, 442, 258 P.3d 43(2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting State v. Maqers, 164 Wash. 2d 174, 191, 189 P.3d 126 (2008)). “A
prosecuting attorney commits misconduct by misstating the law.” State v. Allen,
182 Wash. 2d 364, 373, 341 P.3d 268 (2015). But “[i]f the defendant did not object,
he is deemed to have waived any error, unless the prosecutor’s misconduct was
16
No. 77445-0-1117
so flagrant and ill intentioned that an instruction could not have cured the
resulting prejudice.” State v. Whitaker, 6 Wash. App. 2d 1, 15-16, 429 P.3d 512
(2018), review ciranted, 193 Wash. 2d 1012 (2019). “Underthis 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.” State v.
Emery, 174 Wash. 2d 741, 761, 278 P.3d 653 (2012) (quoting Thorgerson, 172
Wash. 2d at 455).
Here, during closing argument, the prosecutor explained:
So really, it will get down to these two questions, did the
defendant take a substantial step towards committing the act of
rape in the second degree. So what is rape in the second degree?
How do you know if someone has the intent to commit rape in the
second degree? Rape in the second degree is sexual intercourse
with another person who was incapable of consent by reason of
being mentally incapacitated.
She then argued that the jury needed to consider only two contested elements.
For example, the prosecutor stated, “[cjurrently we’re asking ourselves, did he try
to have sex with her, and was she too drunk for him to be doing that; that’s it.
That’s what it comes down to.” Additionally, she stated that there was
“compelling medical evidence that the defendant not only took that substantial
step towards having sex with [J.A.], but that she also was incapable of
consenting at the time and didn’t consent.” Later, the prosecutor stated, “[t]hose
two aspects of this case are incredibly compelling . . .—did he try to have sex
with her, was she too drunk to consent.”
17
No. 77445-0-1/18
During these arguments, the prosecutor also argued that J.A.’s
incapacitation was obvious: witness testimony highlighted “why it’s so likely that
[J.A.] was clearly incapable of consent that night” and testimony that J.A. was
hanging onto her friends was evidence of her drunkenness that “would likely
have been usable [sic] to Mr. Kebede.” She also disagreed with Kebede’s
observations of J.A.’s sobriety:
All the (inaudible) that you heard; oh, no, no, it’s not because she’s
drunk, guys. She’s not drunk even though every single sign points
towards she is. It’s 1:40 in the morning on Capitol Hill, a girl
dressed up in party clothes, chowing down on some tacos at the
taco stand, gets in the car, “let’s go,” starts swearing again, and
grabs your hand and you’re saying that girl’s not drunk?
Well, somehow, Mr. Kebede wanted you to believe that he is
a great judge of character, and that’s part of his job, and he can
read people, and that’s an important aspect of his career, and he
can tell when people are drunk; but then when specifically asked
about [J.A.], he won’t commit. At first he wants to say, no, no I
can’t [tell] if she’s drinking milk versus alcohol; but then when
confronted, you actually did say she was drinking. You did say she
was tipsy, and starts to start backpedaling. You saw that a lot
throughout his testimony, a lot of backpedaling, a lot of excuses,
explanations, not answering the direct question. It was clear [J.A.]
was drunk, and he even said it to the detective, “She’s tipsy.”
Defense counsel did not object to any of the prosecutor’s closing
arguments. In his own closing argument, defense counsel argued that
J.A. was not that drunk and highlighted testimony from J.A.’s friends at the
club that she did not seem drunk. He also acknowledged that as argued
by the prosecutor, consent is “the central issue in this case.” In explaining
the to-convict instruction, defense counsel correctly explained what the
State must prove based on Johnson:
So the State needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Mr. Kebede knew [J.A.] was mentally incapacitated in order to be
18
No. 77445-0-1/19
able to prove intent; they have to prove he knew it. And the intent
definition is instructed in Instruction 8. It’s a very straightforward,
“Acting with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result that
constitutes a crime.” What is his purpose? What was he trying to
accomplish? Accomplishing a sexual act is not enough to
constitute a crime. It has to be sex with a mentally incapacitated
person, and they have to prove he knew it.
And in order for him to have that specific intent, they
have to prove he knew she was mentally incapacitated.
On rebuttal, the prosecutor again focused on J.A.’s incapacitation,
arguing, “Remember there’s the, did he try to have [sex] with her, and was she
too drunk to consent is kind of what it comes down to.” The prosecutor argued
further, “it really comes down to was she too intoxicated to consent” and “really, it
comes down to was she too drunk to have sex.” But she also responded to
defense counsel’s argument that Kebede did not know J.A. was intoxicated:
you know she’s drunk because it’s 1:40 in the morning on Capitol
Hill, because her friends say she was hanging onto a buddy for
support, because she was acting erratic and unusual is far different
than 99 percent of the people that he drove, because he said that
almost always he’s picking up drunk people, because he said that
she was tipsy, because she’s peeing on the side of a bush in front
of a stranger, because she’s acting disrespectful, mouthy, bossy,
rude, because she can’t remember where her phone is. She can’t
remember where her money is, she’s searching on her hands and
knees crawling in the back of the car, because she doesn’t even
know who that guy is when she wakes up. If all of those things can
tell you that she was too drunk, and those were all of the bits of
information that that man had.
Taken in context, the prosecutor’s argument was not a misstatement of the law.
Both in closing and rebuttal, the prosecutor explained that J.A.’s extreme
intoxication was obvious and that Kebede’s testimony to the contrary was not
credible.
19
No. 77445-0-1120
But even if the prosecutor’s repeated focus on the substantial step and
J.A.’s incapacitation was a misstatement of the law, these misstatements are not
reversible misconduct because they could have been cured by an instruction to
the jury. The trial court agreed that Johnson was applicable to this case. But
during closing arguments, defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s
arguments or request that the trial court further instruct the jury or clarify the
intent required under Johnson. Therefore, Kebede has not demonstrated that
the prosecutor’s statements were prejudicial. Ct State v. Blizzard, 195 Wash. App.
717, 733, 381 P.3d 1241 (2016) (“A defendant who waits until appeal to raise
misconduct arguments bears a heavy burden.”), review denied, 187 Wash. 2d 1012
(2017).
Kebede argues that the prosecutor’s misstatement of the law could not
have been cured by an instruction to the jury because the trial court “consistently
refused to instruct the jury on the specific intent element” and the jury instructions
were ambiguous. It is true that the trial court refused to give Kebede’s proposed
to-convict instruction, which required the State to prove that “the defendant knew
[J.A.] was incapable of consent by reason of being mentally incapacitated.” The
trial court did so because it believed that the pattern instruction adequately stated
the intent element, as required in Johnson, which it agreed was an accurate
statement of the law. Therefore, it does not follow from the trial court’s refusal to
give defense counsel’s proposed to-convict instruction that the court would also
have refused to give an instruction to correct a misstatement of the law based on
Johnson.
20
No. 77445-0-1/21
Kebede next cites In re Personal Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wash. 2d 696,
286 P.3d 673 (2012) (plurality opinion), to argue that the prosecutor’s repeated
misrepresentation of the law prejudiced him. But in Glasmann, the prosecutor
improperly expressed his personal opinion of Glasmann’s guilt. Glasmann, 175
Wash. 2d at 706. Here, the prosecutor’s argument was not an improper
misstatement of the law. In fact, she argued during closing and rebuttal that
J.A.’s level of intoxication was obvious and Kebede’s testimony that she
appeared sober was not credible. Therefore, reversal is not warranted.
Exclusion of DNA Evidence
Kebede argues that the trial court denied his right to present a defense by
excluding DNA evidence of J.A.’s additional sexual encounters under the rape
shield statute. We disagree.
“The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence,
the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations.” State v.
Jones, 168 Wash. 2d 713, 720, 230 P.3d 576 (2010) (quoting Chambers v.
Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1973)). But the
right to present a defense is not absolute. Jones, 168 Wash. 2d at 720. “Evidence
that a defendant seeks to introduce ‘must be of at least minimal relevance.”
Jones, 168 Wash. 2d at 720 (quoting State v. Darden, 145 Wash. 2d 612, 622, 41 P.3d
1189 (2002)). If the defendant seeks to admit relevant evidence, “the burden is
on the State to show the evidence is so prejudicial as to disrupt the fairness of
the fact-finding process at trial.” Jones, 168 Wash. 2d at 720 (quoting Darden, 145
Wash. 2d at 622). “The State’s interest in excluding prejudicial evidence must also
21
No. 77445-0-1/22
‘be balanced against the defendant’s need for the information sought,’ and
relevant information can be withheld only ‘if the State’s interest outweighs the
defendant’s need.” Jones, 168 Wash. 2d at 720 (quoting Darden, 145 Wash. 2d at
622). “[FJor evidence of high probative value ‘it appears no state interest can be
compelling enough to preclude its introduction consistent with the Sixth
Amendment and Const. art. 1, § 22.” Jones, 168 Wash. 2d at 720 (quoting State v.
Hudlow, 99 Wash. 2d 1, 16, 659 P.2d 514 (1983)).
The rape shield statute provides:
Evidence of the victim’s past sexual behavior including but not
limited to the victim’s marital history, divorce history, or general
reputation for promiscuity, nonchastity, or sexual mores contrary to
community standards is inadmissible on the issue of credibility and
is inadmissible to prove the victim’s consent.
RCW 9A.44.020(2). The statute applies only to past sexual behavior and “was
not designed to prevent defendants from testifying as to their version of events
but was instead created to erase the misogynistic and antiquated notion that a
woman’s past sexual behavior somehow affected her credibility.” Jones, 168
Wash. 2d at 723.
In Jones, the defendant wanted to testify that his sexual contact with his
niece was consensual and took place during an all-night sex party in which his
niece engaged in consensual sex with two other men. Jones, 168 Wash. 2d at 717.
The trial court excluded the defendant’s testimony under the rape shield statute.
Jones, 168 Wash. 2d at 717-18. The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the
rape shield statute did not apply because the excluded evidence referred to
conduct onthe night of the alleged rape, not to past sexual conduct. Jones, 168
Wash. 2d at 723. It also concluded that the sex party evidence was the defendant’s
No. 77445-0-1/23
‘entire defense,” and that “even if the rape shield statute did apply, the sex party
testimony is of extremely high probative value and cannot be barred without
violating the Sixth Amendment.” Jones, 168 Wash. 2d at 724.
Here, J.A. wore a one-piece swimsuit with a skirt over it on the night of the
attempted rape. During her sexual assault exam, the nurse collected the
swimsuit and obtained a perineal vulvar swab of J.A.’s person. A piece of the
swimsuit’s crotch and the swab were submitted for DNA testing. Testing of the
perineal vulvar swab identified Kebede’s DNA as well as a smaller amount of
DNA from an unknown male, referred to as “Individual A.” Testing of the
swimsuit sample identified DNA from at least four male individuals, but due to the
complexity of the mixture, no additional information could be obtained from it.
The State moved to exclude the DNA evidence from the swimsuit. In
response, Kebede argued that the rape shield statute did not apply because
there was “no reason to believe that the biological evidence was left behind at
some point prior to the night in question” and, therefore, it was not evidence of
past sexual behavior. Kebede also argued that the evidence was necessary to
support his statement to poHce that J.A. smelled like she had sex already that
night and to rebut the State’s theory that he caused J.A.’s vaginal injuries. The
trial court granted the motion to exclude the DNA evidence from the swimsuit,
holding that it was “far less relevant” than the DNA evidence from Individual A,
which was admitted, and that its probative value was far outweighed by the
prejudice it would cause.
23
No. 77445-0-1/24
The trial court’s decision did not violate Kebede’s right to present a
defense. The trial court admitted the DNA evidence from Individual A, which
supported Kebede’s theory that J.A. had sex earlier that night and that Individual
A caused her vaginal injuries. In comparison, the swimsuit evidence was neither
highly probative nor vital because no further information about how or when the
DNA was left on the swimsuit could be obtained and the DNA from Individual A
was admitted. Therefore, this case is distinguishable from Jones because the
excluded evidence was not Kebede’s entire defense.
Kebede argues that the State opened the door to the swimsuit DNA
evidence during J.A.’s testimony and the trial court erred by denying his motion
to admit it. ‘A party may open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence by
introducing evidence that must be rebutted in order to preserve fairness and
determine the truth.” State v. Wafford, 199 Wash. App. 32, 36-37, 397 P.3d 926,
review denied, 189 Wash. 2d 1014 (2017). ‘The decision to admit evidence lies
within the sound discretion of the trial court and should not be overturned absent
a manifest abuse of discretion.” Wafford, 199 Wash. App. at 36.
Here, J.A. testified that she did not consent to having sex with Kebede and
she “would never.” She also testified that she told police that as a young girl in
her early twenties, she did not need to go to a motel “to get laid,” that she had
never had a one-night stand, and that if she wanted to have one there were other
age-appropriate peers at the nightclub she could have gone home with. Kebede
then moved to admit the swimsuit DNA evidence, arguing it suggested that
perhaps J.A. did have sex with an age-appropriate peer that night. The trial court
24
No. 77445-0-1/25
denied Kebede’s motion, finding that although the prosecutor “got pretty close” to
opening the door, the prejudice of the evidence far outweighed its probative
value. When Kebede asked the court to reconsider its decision, the trial court
declined, explaining that the swimsuit DNA evidence was not relevant because
there was no information about when or how the DNA got onto the swimsuit.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kebede’s motion.
Kebede was able to argue that J.A. had sex that night with Individual A. The
swimsuit DNA evidence was highly prejudicial and of low probative value given
the admission of the DNA of Individual A. Furthermore, in the absence of any
evidence of how the DNA got onto the swimsuit, the swimsuit evidence was
irrelevant to Kebede’s theory because there was no way to tell whether the DNA
was transferred during the night of the attempted rape or during a one-night
stand, as Kebede suggested. Kebede’s right to present a defense was not
violated by its exclusion.
Court Costs
Kebede challenges the imposition of $110 in court costs as part of his
legal financial obligations, and the State concedes that the court costs must be
struck from his judgment and sentence. We accept the State’s concession.
RCW 10.01.160(3) prohibits trial courts from imposing costs on
defendants who are indigent at the time of sentencing. This statute, amended
effective June 7, 2018, applies prospectively to cases on direct appeal when the
amendment was enacted. State v. Ramirez, 191 Wash. 2d 732, 749, 426 P.3d 714
(201 8).
25
No. 77445-0-1/26
Here, Kebede declared that he was indigent at the time of sentencing. His
judgment and sentence was filed on September 14, 2017, and is still on direct
appeal. Therefore, the costs must be struck from his judgment and sentence.
We accept the State’s concession and remand for the trial court to strike the
court costs.
SAG
Kebede filed a SAG that includes 15 numbered topics. We hold that none
of them require reversal.
When considering issues raised in a SAG, we will consider only
arguments that are not repetitive of briefing. RAP 10.10(a). We also will not
consider a defendant’s SAG if it does not inform the court of the nature and
occurrence of the alleged errors. RAP 10.10(c); State v. Bluehorse, 159 Wn.
App. 410, 436, 248 P.3d 537 (2011). We are not required to search the record in
support of claims made in the SAG. RAP 10.10(c). Complaints about attorney
performance cannot be entertained if the attorney’s conduct “can be
characterized as legitimate trial strategy or tactics.” State v. McNeal, 145 Wash. 2d
352, 362, 37 P.3d 280 (2002). “Finally, issues that involve facts or evidence not
in the record are properly raised through a personal restraint petition, not a
[SAG].” State v. Calvin, 176 Wash. App. 1, 26, 316 P.3d 496 (2013).
The first two issues Kebede raises are claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. They involve his attorney’s failure to retest DNA evidence or investigate
whether his police interview video was altered and his attorney’s
recommendation to proceed to a jury trial rather than a bench trial. All of these
26
No. 77445-0-1/27
decisions can be characterized as legitimate trial strategies. Therefore, reversal
is not required. Kebede also claims that he was not given “items from the
evidence.” Although he includes page numbers for these items, he does not
specify what they are, and it is impossible to determine what he is referring to.
Because he has not properly identified the missing items, we need not reach this
issue.
The third issue Kebede raises is a jury selection issue. Without any
citation to the record, he states that five jurors were unfairly excused during voir
dire and one biased juror was retained. Because he does not provide any
citation to the record or identify the jurors by number, we need not consider this
argument.
Issues 4 through 12 point out alleged inconsistencies in various witnesses’
testimony. But “[cjredibility determinations are for the trier of fact and are not
subject to review.” State v. Thomas, 150 Wash. 2d 821, 874, 83 P.3d 970 (2004).
As determined above, sufficient evidence supported Kebede’s conviction. His
recitation of conflicting evidence does not warrant reversal.
Issues 13 and 14 involve the trial court. First, Kebede asserts that the trial
court asked defense counsel if he was ready for trial and defense counsel said
that he was not. It is unclear what error Kebede is alleging, and there is no
citation to the record. Therefore, we need not review it. Kebede also alleges that
he was disrespected because the prosecutor was smiling during trial, but he
does not explain how this affected his trial. Kebede states that he could not
understand most of the jury instructions and he could not see most of the
27
No. 77445-0-1/28
exhibits. His SAG does not indicate that he brought this to the attention of the
court or alerted defense counsel. Therefore, he has waived any claim on this
basis. Finally, Kebede claims that it was unfair that evidence that he tore J.A.’s
clothes was admitted but the trial court excluded DNA evidence from J.A.’s
swimsuit. As discussed above, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
excluding the swimsuit evidence. None of these issues require reversal.
Issue 15 includes errors Kebede accuses the prosecutor of making. First,
he argues that she erred in stating that J.A.’s alcohol content was 1 .5 times the
legal limit because her blood alcohol level was measured at 0.00 during her
sexual assault exam. But the alcohol in her urine was measured at 0.12, so the
prosecutor’s statement was not incorrect. Next, he claims that the prosecutor
stood too close to the jury and influenced them by doing so. Because Kebede
did not object to the prosecutor’s positioning during trial, he has waived this
argument on appeal. Finally, he asserts that the prosecutor failed to turn over
the video of an interview J.A. gave to a news reporter. But the record indicates
that the trial court denied Kebede’s motion to subpoena the video from the news
station and excluded the evidence. Therefore, the record does not support his
argument that the State refused to give him the video.
Finally, in issue 16, Kebede contends that the police interview video was
altered. Because this claim relies on evidence outside the record, we cannot
consider it. ~ McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d at 338 n.5 (“[A] personal restraint petition
is the appropriate means of having the reviewing court consider matters outside
the record.”).
28
No. 77445-0-1/29
We affirm but remand for the trial court to strike Kebede’s court costs from
his judgment and sentence.
~AAAjA’
WE CONCUR:
V ~
29