State Of Washington, V Ryan Dee Whitaker ( 2014 )

CD C00
2?o
cr m
i
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON &
oo
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
Respondent, No. 71666-2-1
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
RYAN DEE WHITAKER
Appellant. FILED: July 7, 2014
Dwyer, J. — After a trial to the court, sitting without a jury, Ryan Whitaker
was found guilty of two counts of child molestation in the first degree. Whitaker
appeals, raising the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by allowing
the child victim's counselor to give expert testimony; (2) whether he was denied
the effective assistance of counsel by virtue of his trial attorney's failure to
properly object to the counselor's testimony; (3) whether the trial court erred by
declining to personally visit the scene of the crime; (4) whether the trial court
erred by entering a no-contact order effective for 100 years; (5) whether he was
denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not interview
or summon to court several potential witnesses; (6) whether the functions of the
Indeterminate Sentence Review Board were unlawfully included in the pertinent
No. 71666-2-1/2
bill passed by the legislature; (7) whether the trial court erred by imposing as a
condition of his sentence that he submit to plethysmograph testing at the
direction of his community corrections officer; (8) whether the information
charging Whitaker was deficient because it did not allege that he acted for his
sexual gratification as an element of the offense of child molestation in the first
degree; and (9) whether the trial court erred by overruling his challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence brought at the conclusion of the State's case in chief.
We hold that the plethysmograph testing condition was improper and,
accordingly, reverse that part of his sentence with instructions to the trial court to
modify that condition on remand. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment
and sentence.
Whitaker also filed a personal restraint petition, which was consolidated
with his direct appeal. In his petition, Whitaker argues that his counsel's failure to
interview or to call as witnesses three classmates of the child victim constituted
ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Even had Whitaker's counsel rendered
deficient performance, however, Whitaker fails to establish that he suffered any
resulting prejudice. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.
I
In 2011, Whitaker was a member of the St. John's Ward of the Church of
Latter Day Saints, located in Vancouver, Washington. Whitaker was also a
1Whitaker also raises this issue in his direct appeal. We resolve the issue in the context
ofthe personal restraint petition because it contains additional factual averments. However,
whether we analyze the issue pursuant to the standard ofreview applicable todirect appeals or
pursuant to the personal restraint petition standard of review, our result isthe same in this case.
-2-
No. 71666-2-1/3
teacher of primary school students. Between January 2011 and August 2011,
his class of approximately eight students included the nine year old victim, M.S.
Every Sunday, the students at the church would gather for instruction in a
large meeting room—the "sharing time" room. M.S.'s class would sit in the very
back of the room. M.S. would frequently sit next to Whitaker, either because he
asked her to sit next to him or because he took the seat next to her. During the
time the students were in the "sharing time" room, they would be facing forward,
toward the front of the room, where someone would lead them in song or would
preach to them.
M.S. testified at trial that Whitaker would reach under her skirt and touch
her vagina with his hand while they were in the "sharing time" room. She stated
that he touched her in this manner every Sunday and that the other children did
not see what he was doing.
M.S. also testified that, on another occasion, Whitaker asked her to stay
behind and help him in a small classroom. Once they were alone, Whitaker
kneeled down and touched her vagina with his hand over her dress for 10
seconds. Whitaker asked M.S. if it made her uncomfortable when he touched
her. Although she did not respond to his question, she testified that it made her
feel "weird" and she decided to tell her mother what had happened. That night,
in August 2011, she told her mother what had been happening to her.
Subsequently, the State charged Whitaker with one count of rape of a
child in the first degree and three counts of child molestation in the first degree.
Whitaker waived his right to a jury trial and the case was tried before the
-3-
No. 71666-2-1/4
Honorable Robert Lewis.
At trial, Whitaker denied that he ever touched M.S. inappropriately. He
called numerous witnesses to testify that it would have been impossible for him
to do what M.S. had described. Steven Gonsalves,2 Laurie Ogden, and Pamela
Wise—three fellow teachers—all testified that Whitaker could not have touched
M.S. in the "sharing time" room without being noticed. Paul and Michelle
Pecora—the parents of a child in Whitaker's class—provided similar testimony.
Other students in Whitaker's class, including K.C., K.O., and J.K., were
not subpoenaed by the defense to testify. These three children were each
interviewed by Cynthia Bull, the investigating officer. Although the interviews
were not included in her police report, they were made available to defense
counsel in the form of CD recordings. While defense counsel did not call these
children as witnesses, she did try to enter the contents of the interviews into
evidence in an attempt both to impeach Detective Bull and to present exculpatory
evidence. The trial court, however, did not admit the contents of the interviews.
Danielle Wilcox testified as an expert witness for the State. She is a
family and child therapist with the Children's Center and she was M.S.'s
counselor following her disclosure of sexual abuse. Although Whitaker's defense
counsel objected, the trial court permitted Wilcox to offer an opinion as to
whether M.S. expressed feelings that were consistent with someone who had
experienced a traumatic event such as sexual abuse. She was not, however,
2 Gonsalves served as a co-teacher with Whitaker on four Sundays and, on those days,
sat with Whitaker's class in the back two rows.
-4-
No. 71666-2-1/5
permitted to testify as to any statements M.S. made or offer an opinion as to
whether M.S. had, in fact, been sexually abused.
Whitaker requested that the trial judge view the site of the alleged crimes,
but the judge declined to do so.
Judge Lewis entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, in which he ruled
that the defendant was guilty of two counts of child molestation in the first
degree. His findings and conclusions, in their entirety, are as follows:
I. FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. Between January 1, 2011 and August 31, 2011, the
defendant was a Sunday school teacher in the Church of Latter
Day Saints, St. John's Ward. M.L.S. was a female child in the
defendant's class during that time. On or between those dates, the
defendant massaged the vagina of M.L.S. with his hand on at least
two occasions.
2. On at least one occasion, the defendant touched M.L.S. in
the larger "sharing time" room. The defendant would often have
M.L.S. sit with him in the back row of the classroom. When he
would touch her he would use his jacket to hide his actions, either
putting it across their laps, or behind her. He then massaged her
vagina and buttocks with his hand. He massaged her vagina and
buttocks both over her tights, and under her clothing, on her skin.
3. Another incident occurred in the smaller classroom. The
defendant had asked M.L.S. to stay behind to run an errand for
him. When they were alone, he knelt in front of her. He asked her
why she wasn't wearing her tights that day. He proceeded to
massage her vagina with his hand over her dress. He asked
M.L.S. if it made her feel uncomfortable when he would touch her.
This incident prompted M.L.S. to tell her mother.
4. M.L.S. eventually disclosed the touching to her mother in
August 2011. She approached her mother, Arica Smith, and told
her that she needed to talk to her.
5. The defendant had no legitimate reason to touch M.L.S's
vagina or buttocks.
6. M.L.S.'s date of birth is August 13, 2002. She was eight or
nine years old at the time of the offense.
7. The defendant's date of birth is November 7, 1953. He was
fifty-seven at the time of the offenses.
-5-
No. 71666-2-1/6
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the
subject matter of the action.
2. All of the above facts have been proven by the State beyond
a reasonable doubt.
3. On two separate and distinct occasions, on or between
January 1, 2011 and August 31, 2011, the defendant had sexual
contact with M.L.S. M.L.S. was less than twelve years old at the
time of the sexual contact and was not married to, or in a state-
registered domestic partnership with, the defendant. The
defendant was at least thirty-six months older than M.L.S.
4. The touching was of a sexual or intimate part of M.L.S., done
for the purpose of gratifying sexual desires of either party.
5. The defendant is guilty of Child Molestation in the First
Degree as alleged in count three of the information.!31
6. The defendant is guilty of Child Molestation in the First
Degree as alleged in count four of the information.[4]
7. At least one separate act of sexual contact between the
defendant and M.L.S., pertaining to each count, has been proved
beyond a reasonable doubt.
8. A defendant used a position of trust to facilitate a crime. The
defendant gained access to the victim of the offense, M.L.S.,
because of the trust relationship. The defendant also gained
access to the location of the offense, the Sunday school
classrooms at the St. John's Ward of the Church of Latter Day
Saints, because of the trust relationship.
9. The defendant is not guilty of Rape of a Child in the First
Degree, as alleged in count one, and Child Molestation in the First
Degree, as alleged in count two.
On March 5, 2013, Whitaker was sentenced to a minimum of 89 months in
prison and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. He was also sentenced to
lifetime community custody. Additionally, the trial court imposed a sexual assault
3"That he, RYAN DEE WHITAKER, in the County of Clark, State of Washington,
between January 1, 2011 and August 31, 2011, on an occasion separate and distinct from that
charged in Counts 2 and 4 . . . ."
4"That he, RYAN DEE WHITAKER, in the County of Clark, State of Washington,
between January 1, 2011 and August 31, 2011, on an occasion separate and distinct from that
charged in Counts 2 and 3 . . . ."
-6
No. 71666-2-1/7
protection order effective for 100 years.
Whitaker appealed and filed a personal restraint petition that was
consolidated with his direct appeal. We address both herein.
II
Whitaker first contends that the trial court erred by permitting Wilcox to
testify as an expert witness and that Wilcox offered improper testimony. This is
so, he avers, because her testimony was based upon principles not generally
accepted in the scientific community as required by Frve v. United States. 293 F.
1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). However, because Whitaker has failed to overcome the
presumption that—in a bench trial—the trial court disregards inadmissible or
incompetent evidence when ruling, no appellate relief is warranted.
"A trial court's decision to admit expert testimony is reviewed for abuse of
discretion." State v. Kirkman. 159 Wash. 2d 918, 927, 155 P.3d 125 (2007).
"An expert's scientific or technical testimony must be based upon a
scientific principle or explanatory theory that has gained general acceptance in
the scientific community." State v. Jones. 71 Wash. App. 798, 814, 863 P.2d 85
(1993). "Under Frve, generalized testimony regarding a profile of behaviors of
victims of sexual abuse must be sufficiently established to have gained general
acceptance by the scientific community." Jones. 71 Wash. App. at 818. "[Tjhe use
of generalized profile testimony, whether from clinical experience or reliance on
studies in the field, to prove the existence of abuse is insufficient under Frve."
Jones. 71 Wash. App. at 820. Such evidence may be presented, however, "to
-7
No. 71666-2-1/8
rebut an inference that certain behaviors of the victim, such as sexual acting out,
are inconsistent with abuse." Jones. 71 Wash. App. at 820.
It is significant that, in this case, no jurywas empanelled. "'In bench trials,
judges routinely hear inadmissible evidence that they are presumed to ignore
when making decisions.'" State v. Read, 147 Wash. 2d 238, 245, 53 P.3d 26 (2002)
(quoting Harris v. Rivera. 454 U.S. 339, 346, 102 S. Ct. 460, 70 L. Ed. 2d 530
(1981)). As our Supreme Court has explained:
"In the trial of a nonjury case, it is virtually impossible for a
trial judge to commit reversible error by receiving incompetent
evidence, whether objected to or not. An appellate court will not
reverse a judgment in a nonjury case because of the admission of
incompetent evidence, unless all of the competent evidence is
sufficient to support the judgment or unless it affirmatively appears
that the incompetent evidence induced the court to make an
essential finding which would not otherwise have been made."
Read. 147 Wash. 2d at 245 (quoting Builders Steel Co. v. Comm'r of Internal
Revenue. 179 F.2d 377, 379 (8th Cir. 1950)).
When the State called Wilcox as an expert witness, Whitaker's defense
counsel objected on the basis thatWilcox had not been disclosed as an expert
witness. The trial court, however, allowed Wilcox to testify as an expert witness,
subject to certain restrictions on the scope of her testimony.
I will allow—if she believes she can make—express such
opinions Ms. Wilcox to indicate in general the sorts offeelings since
she's indicated—she's already indicated in her previous Offer of
Proof that she's not a forensic person, that she believes that—or
assumes that if a child says they've been sexually abused, then
they were—she accepts that assumption.
So she at least has indicated she can't—and makes no
attempt to determine whether the person, in fact has been sexually
abused based on what they're expressing.
If she is in a position to testify that there are certain feelings
-8-
No. 71666-2-1/9
or emotions that sexual abuse victims express and that [M.S.]
expressed—without going into the details of her statements—
expressed similar statements, then she's permitted to testify as to
that.
Absent some other showing that in fact I'm not being told
and I don't think I would allow her to testify that based on what
[M.S. is] saying, she's concluding that she was, in fact sexually
abused. Only that those expressions of feelings are consistent with
a person that—in her expert opinion has experienced some
traumatic event like sexual abuse.
Whitaker's defense counsel objected again, directing the trial court's
attention to this court's decision in Jones and arguing that Jones precluded the
testimony that the trial court was allowing.5 Specifically, defense counsel stated:
In a prosecution for molestation and rape of a child the court
allowed a case worker to testify about the child's nightmares and
the child's propensity to act out as they were common behaviors of
essentially abused children, behaviors collectively called
sometimes the sexual abuse syndrome.
The Defendant was convicted and appealed and argued the
testimony should have been excluded based upon the Frve rule.
Division 1 terms the issue difficult and reached something of a
compromise holding that evidence of sexual abuse syndrome is
objectionable under Frve when offered to prove the fact of abuse.
And it would appear that they're trying to enter this
information to indicate that this is a child of abuse which is not
relevant when the therapist has already testified that she wouldn't
know the difference between someone alleging abuse that happens
and alleging abuse that didn't happen.
The judge then asked the prosecutor whether he was offering testimony
as to sexual abuse syndrome. The prosecutor responded that he was not
offering testimony as to sexual abuse syndrome.
5On appeal, the State argues that Whitaker failed to preserve this issue for review. This
is so, it claims, because Whitaker did not object after the trial court clarified that Wilcox could only
testify as to whether M.S. had feelings that were consistentwith someone who had experienced
trauma, such as sexual abuse. The State's position is untenable. It was not incumbent upon
Whitaker to interpose duplicative objections to the admission of Wilcox's testimony. The issue
was properly preserved for review.
-9-
No. 71666-2-1/10
No I am not. I believe that that particular syndrome does not
meet the criteria so I'm not offering the name of the syndrome or
that these—these—in fact these characteristics make up that
syndrome as I'm familiar with it, and they do not.
So they are some of the characteristics but they are not the
full syndrome and the syndrome we're not asking for here.
The trial court did not change its ruling. However, the judge told defense
counsel that if "after the testimony you think there's some additional piece of
evidence that came in that you wish me to move me to strike, I will listen to your
argument at that time."
On direct examination, the prosecutor asked Wilcox whether she had "an
opportunity to make any observations with regard to something called
traumagenic dynamics." Wilcox said that she had and she defined "traumagenic
dynamics" as follows:
Traumagenic dynamics are—well there's four specific traumagenic
dynamics outlined by David Finklehore (ph), PhD and Angela
Brown, PhD.
And it's stigma, powerlessness, traumatic sexualization and
betrayal. And these are four symptoms or dynamics that come up
for children who have experienced sexual abuse.
And what they—what they do is an altering cognitive and
emotional orientation to the world and creating trauma by distorting
self-concept world view and effective capacities.
Wilcox then testified that she had observed all four of these dynamics in her
treatment of M.S.
In light of our decision in Jones, the trial court's decision to admitWilcox's
testimony is troubling. Although the State asserted to the trial judge that it was
not attempting to elicit testimony regarding sexual abuse syndrome, on appeal
the State failed to articulate a distinction between sexual abuse syndrome and
10
No. 71666-2-1/11
"traumagenic dynamics." The testimony elicited from Wilcox appears to be
generalized profile testimony being offered to prove the existence of abuse,
which is the type of testimony foreclosed by Jones.
However, even if the trial court did abuse its discretion in making its
evidentiary ruling, Whitaker has not overcome the presumption that the trial court
did not rely on the inadmissible evidence in rendering its decisions on guilt. In
order to do so, he must establish either that all of the competent evidence
received was insufficient to support the convictions or that the incompetent
evidence induced the trial court to make an essential finding that it otherwise
would not have made. Although the trial court did not credit the entirety of M.S.'s
testimony—as evidenced by the acquittal on two counts charged in the second
amended information—the testimony that was credited was sufficient to support
Whitaker's conviction on two counts. Furthermore, contrary to Whitaker's
position, the trial court's decision to acquit Whitaker on two counts does not show
that Wilcox's testimony induced the court to make an essential finding that
otherwise would not have been made. Had Wilcox's testimony had the effect
claimed by Whitaker, presumably the trial court would have convicted Whitaker
on all four counts. Yet, Whitaker provides no explanation as to why Wilcox's
testimony induced the trial court to convict on two counts and to acquit on two
others. Indeed, Wilcox's testimony is not referenced at all in the trial court's
findings of fact.
The record supports the conclusion that the trial court was well-versed as
to the evidentiary dangers addressed in our Jones decision, and the trial judge
-11 -
No. 71666-2-1/12
was careful not to allow Wilcox to testify as to what had actually happened
between M.S. and Whitaker or what M.S. had said to her about that. The trial
court was well aware of its obligation to not allow Wilcox to "vouch" for M.S. as a
witness. Given the care taken by the trial court in ruling on the various questions
raised by Wilcox's proffered testimony, there is no reason for us to believe that
the trial court put Wilcox's testimony to an improper use. Because Whitaker has
failed to rebut the presumption that the trial court did not rely on inadmissible or
incompetent evidence in reaching its findings as to guilt, no appellate relief is
warranted.6'7
III
Whitaker next contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not
viewing the scene of the crime. This is so, he asserts, because a view "could
only serve to clarify and dispel" the contradictory and confusing testimony offered
regarding the "sharing time" room. We disagree.
"Under CrR 6.9, the trial court is given the discretion to allow the jury to
view the crime scene." State v. Land. 121 Wash. 2d 494, 501, 851 P.2d 678 (1993).
Accordingly, "[a] trial court's refusal to permit a jury view is reviewed under an
abuse of discretion standard." Land. 121 Wash. 2d at 502. "The purpose of
permitting a jury to view the crime scene is to enable it to better understand the
6Whitaker also argues that Wilcox improperly testified that she believed that M.S. was
telling the truth about being molested and that itwas her personal opinion that Whitaker molested
M.S. This argument is based on testimonyWilcox gave during an offerof proof. There is no
danger that the trial court improperly relied on such testimony in reaching its final decisions.
7Whitakeralso argues that, in the event that we conclude that his counsel failed to
properly interpose an objection to the admission ofWilcox's testimony, his counsel's assistance
was ineffective. Given our conclusion that defense counsel properly preserved this issue for
review, we need not consider this argument.
-12-
No. 71666-2-1/13
evidence produced in court." Land. 121 Wash. 2d at 501-02. The same concern
applies to the trial court's decision as to whether a view of the scene would be
beneficial to the judge in a bench trial.
In denying Whitaker's request, the trial court observed that viewing the site
would not reveal anything that would constitute evidence and that viewing the
site would be necessary only if there was confusion about the testimony or
evidence presented. Although Whitaker asserts that the trial court received
directly contradictory evidence "as to who could see what, and from where,"
Whitaker cites to nothing in the record to support this contention or to
demonstrate why the trial court was disabled from correctly determining which
evidence was credible. This decision fell squarely within the trial court's
discretion. There was no error.8
IV
Whitaker next contends that the sexual assault protection order issued by
the trial court is void on its face. This is so, he argues, because although the
pertinent statute sets forth an indeterminate duration for such orders, the trial
court issued an order that would expire on a specific date. We disagree.
We review a trial court's imposition of sentencing conditions for abuse of
discretion. State v. Deskins. 180 Wash. 2d 68, 77, 322 P.3d 780 (2014). A trial
court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based
8Whitaker's duplicative argument contained within his statement of additional grounds is
also of no avail.
-13-
No. 71666-2-1/14
on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker.
79 Wash. 2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971). Sentencing conditions are generally
upheld if they are reasonably crime related. State v. Riley. 121 Wash. 2d 22, 36,
846 P.2d 1365 (1993). An order prohibiting contact with the victim of a crime is a
crime-related prohibition. In re Pers. Restraint of Rainev. 168 Wash. 2d 367, 376,
229 P.3d 686 (2010).
In conjunction with the trial court's authority under RCW 9.94A.505(8),9 a
statute specifically authorizes issuance of a separate sexual assault protection
order if no contact with the victim is imposed as a condition of a defendant's
sentence. See RCW 7.90.150(6)(a). This statute allows the trial court to impose
an order prohibiting the defendant from having contact with the victim for a period
of time to include two years following expiration of a sentence or period of
community supervision. The statute provides:
(6)(a) When a defendant is found guilty of a sex offense as
defined in RCW 9.94A.030 . . ., and a condition of the sentence
restricts the defendant's ability to have contact with the victim, the
condition shall be recorded as a sexual assault protection order.
(c) A final sexual assault protection order entered in
conjunction with a criminal prosecution shall remain in effect for a
period of two years following the expiration of any sentence of
imprisonment and subsequent period of community supervision,
conditional release, probation, or parole.
RCW 7.90.150.
Whitaker was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence that, among other
things, included lifetime community custody. Issuing an order with an expiration
9This provision empowers a sentencing court, as a part of any sentence, to impose and
enforce crime-related prohibitions and affirmative conditions.
-14-
No. 71666-2-1/15
date set 100 years in the future guarantees that the victim will be protected for as
long as Whitaker remains alive, whether he remains in prison or is released on
community custody. This achieves the statute's goal. The trial court did not
abuse its discretion.
V
In his personal restraint petition, Whitaker contends that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel. This occurred, he avers, because his counsel
failed to interview and subpoena as witnesses three classmates of M.S. We
disagree.
As part of her investigation, Detective Bull interviewed K.C., K.O., and
J.K.—three classmates of M.S. The interviews were recorded and transcribed.
During K.C.'s interview, he told Detective Bull that in the sharing time
room, M.S. would sit on one side of Whitaker and he would sit on the other. He
said that Whitaker usually kept his jacket on but that he would give it to someone
else to wear ifthat person was cold. K.C. said that Whitaker never gave his
jacket to M.S. When asked why not, K.C. said that it was because "she'd (sic)
mostly not at church because she was gone for three months." When told to
focus on the relevant time period, he said that M.S. never wore Whitaker's jacket.
He immediately changed his mind and said that M.S. did wear Whitaker's jacket.
Ultimately, K.C. opined that he did not really know ifWhitaker's jacket was ever
on M.S.'s lap. K.C. never saw Whitaker touch M.S. or any other child
inappropriately.
15
No. 71666-2-1/16
K.O. said she never saw Whitaker take his jacket off because it did not get
hot in class. She said Whitaker never did anything to make her feel
uncomfortable. She said that Whitaker sat in the last row, whereas she
sometimes sat in the first of their two rows. When asked if there was anyone in
particular who usually sat next to Whitaker, she said, "just girls—he wanted the
girls." She said M.S. usually sat by herself, by K.O., or by another girl. Contrary
to her earlier statement, she said that Whitaker did, in fact, take his jacket off in
class sometimes. He would put the jacket on the back of a chair. She said that
he would do that in the smaller classroom and she would not notice what he did
in the sharing room.
J.K. told Detective Bull that Whitaker sat in the back row during the
sharing hour. She said that everybody sat next to Whitaker and that M.S. sat
next to Whitaker a lot. She said that Whitaker would sometimes take his jacket
off and put it on the back of a chair. She said that he never put his jacket on
someone's lap, but then said she would not have seen what he did with his jacket
because she would not have been looking. She said that sometimes Whitaker
would tickle a student on the middle of the student's back. M.S. was one of the
students he tickled. J.K. thought that Whitaker only tickled her and M.S. When
he tickled J.K., he would do it from behind her in the big primary class. When
asked if Whitaker ever asked her to do something that she did not think was
okay, J.K. said she did not remember.
Detective Bull asked J.K. whether she ever saw Whitaker touch M.S.'s leg
and she said, "I don't know." Bull asked J.K. if there was anything about
-16-
No. 71666-2-1/17
Whitaker that made her uncomfortable, about how he acted or what he did, to
which she replied: "In primary if I was sitting next to him he would sort of do this
over the chair (moves arm as though putting it on the back of a chair)." Bull
asked J.K ifthere was anything she did not like about Whitaker and she shook
her head "no." She was then asked if there was anything she did like about
Whitaker and she again shook her head "no." Bull asked, "Is there—have you
ever told anybody about having any problems with him?" J.K. shook her head
"no." Bull then asked, "Okay. Is that something you could tell somebody?" J.K.
shook her head "no." Bull then told J.K. that she could tell her anything and she
would not get in trouble, to which J.K. nodded her head. Bull then asked, "So—is
there anything that we should talk about?" J.K. replied, "I don't know" and
shrugged her shoulders. Bull then asked J.K. if she was ever touched on her
private parts and she replied, "no." She also said that she never saw Whitaker
touch M.S. on her private parts. Bull asked how it made J.K. feel when Whitaker
tickled her and she said it made her feel funny.
Whitaker's trial counsel did not call as a trial witness any of the three
children who were interviewed by Detective Bull. In fact, Whitaker's trial attorney
did not interview them. At trial, she did attempt to have the recordings of the
interviews with Detective Bull admitted into evidence, but the trial court denied
her proffer. Defense counsel, in a declaration included in Whitaker's personal
restraint petition, stated, "I wanted to call these witnesses, however, Iwas
informed prior to trial that none ofthem were attending the church any longer."
She went on to state, "I did not ask my investigator to locate the children. It was
-17-
No. 71666-2-1/18
not a tactical choice to not call these exculpatory witnesses. I simply did not
obtain their presence, nor issue subpoenas to them. I wish I had."
"To obtain state judicial review of a decision through a personal restraint
proceeding, an inmate is required to demonstrate both that he or she is being
restrained and that the restraint is unlawful." In re Pers. Restraint of Costello,
131 Wash. App. 828, 832, 129 P.3d 827 (2006). Relief may be obtained "by
demonstrating either a constitutional violation or a violation of state law."
Costello. 131 Wash. App. at 832. "[I]n the context of constitutional error, a
petitioner must satisfy his threshold burden of demonstrating actual and
substantial prejudice." In re Pers. Restraint of Cook. 114 Wash. 2d 802, 810, 792
P.2d 506 (1990). "Unless a petitioner can make a prima facie showing of such
prejudice, his petition will be dismissed." Cook. 114 Wash. 2d at 810.
"In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,"
Whitaker "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. Hassan. 151 Wash. App. 209, 216-17, 211 P.3d 441 (2009).
However, even deficient performance by counsel "does not warrant setting aside
the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment."
Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668, 691, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674
(1984). "The purpose of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel is to ensure
that a defendant has the assistance necessary to justify reliance on the outcome
of the proceeding" and so "any deficiencies in counsel's performance must be
-18-
No. 71666-2-1/19
prejudicial to the defense in order to constitute ineffective assistance under the
Constitution." Strickland. 466 U.S. at 691-92.
"Where counsel's actions involve trial tactics, the courts have declined to
find constitutional violations." State v. Jones. 33 Wash. App. 865, 872, 658 P.2d
1262 (1983). "Generally, the decision to call a witness will not support a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the presumption of counsel's
competence can be overcome by a showing, among other things, that counsel
failed to conduct appropriate investigations." State v. Thomas, 109 Wash. 2d 222,
230, 743 P.2d 816 (1987) (citations omitted).
When an ineffective assistance claim is based on counsel's failure to call a
witness, our Supreme Court has held that the defendant's showing with respect
to prejudice is insufficient when that witness's testimony does not provide any
significant new facts or evidence that could have led the jury to a different
conclusion. See, e.g.. In re Pers. Restraint of Davis. 152 Wash. 2d 647, 742-43,
101 P.3d 1 (2004) (where defense expert could not "provide any significant new
facts or evidence that might have led the jury to a different conclusion," defense
counsel's failure to call the expert as a witness did not constitute ineffective
assistance).
Without deciding whether Whitaker's counsel's performance was, in fact,
deficient, it is clear that Whitaker cannot establish the requisite prejudice to make
a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. The central issues in
this case were (1) whether M.S. was credible, (2) whether Whitaker was credible,
and (3) whether it was physically possible for Whitaker to have committed the
-19-
No. 71666-2-1/20
acts in the manner described by M.S. At trial, Whitaker offered testimony from a
number of adults who testified that what Whitaker had been accused of doing
would have been impossible for him to do without being noticed. Additionally, the
trial court heard extensive testimony regarding the configuration of the "sharing
time" room, the configuration of the chairs, the design of the chairs, and the
vantage point of the witnesses. Ultimately, the trial court determined that at least
part of M.S.'s testimony was credible and that itwas physically possible for
Whitaker to have committed the acts he was accused of committing in the
manner described by M.S.
Testimony elicited from the three classmates of M.S. would not have
provided any new significant facts or evidence that would have led the trial court
to a different conclusion. Although none of the children saw Whitaker touch M.S.
inappropriately, the contents ofthe interviews indicate that the children were not
particularly observant oftheir surroundings. Their accounts alternate between
confusion and uncertainty, whereas several adult witnesses testified that it would
have been impossible for Whitaker to have done thatwhich he stood accused of
doing. The adult witnesses spoke in no uncertain terms, saying that Whitaker
would have to have been "invisible" or a "contortionist." The children's testimony
would not have added to the strength of this position.
On the other hand, the children also provided potentially damaging
information, particularly J.K., who stated that Whitaker always sat next to girls
and that he tickled his students, which made J.K. uncomfortable. Ultimately,
testimony from these students was unlikely to make any difference in the
-20-
No. 71666-2-1/21
outcome. Accordingly, Whitaker does not establish prejudice and his petition is
dismissed.10
VI
Whitaker raises a number of arguments in a statement of additional
grounds. Only one warrants appellate relief.
Whitaker contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
This occurred, he argues, when his counsel failed to interview or subpoena as
witnesses other classmates of M.S. and other teachers who co-taught with
Whitaker. However, because he provides no indication that any of these
witnesses would have offered exculpatory testimony, his claim fails.
Whitaker argues that his counsel should have interviewed and
subpoenaed four students in M.S.'s class not mentioned in his appellate briefing.
He asserts that these children were interviewed by Detective Bull and rebutted
M.S.'s version of the events. The record does not support this assertion.
Detective Bull testified that, "[n]one of them could corroborate or discount [M.S.'s
version of the events]." (Emphasis added.) Even ifWhitaker's counsel should
have at least interviewed these children, Whitaker cannot establish that he was
prejudiced by counsel's failure to call them as witnesses. This is so because
Whitaker provided no indication that these children would have offered
exculpatory testimony.
10 We reiterate that Whitaker also raised this issue on direct appeal. That claim of error
also fails because of the absence of prejudice, as required by Strickland.
-21 -
No. 71666-2-1/22
Whitaker argues that his counsel should have interviewed and
subpoenaed Whitaker's co-teachers because failing to call them left many weeks
unaccounted for in the defense theory of the case. However, Whitaker does not
demonstrate any likelihood that the outcome would have been different had they
been interviewed or called as witnesses. He provides no indication that these
co-teachers would have offered exculpatory testimony. Thus, he cannot
establish that he was prejudiced.
VII
Whitaker next contends that the court abused its discretion by issuing a
judgment and sentence that contained provisions made without authority of law.
This is so, he argues, because they were based upon the functions of a lapsed
Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB).
Washington State Constitution article II, section 19 provides: "[no] bill shall
embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."
Although the title does not need to act as an index to its contents, "the larger
body ofcase law finds this court requiring proposed legislation carry a title that
'would lead to an inquiry into the body of the act, or indicate to an inquiring mind
the scope and purpose ofthe law.'" Patrice v. Murphv. 136 Wash. 2d 845, 853, 966
P.2d 1271 (1998) (quoting Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. State. 62 Wash. 2d 504,
506, 383 P.2d 497 (1963)).
"A legislative title can be either general or restrictive." State v. Thomas.
103 Wash. App. 800, 807, 14 P.3d 854 (2000). "Where the title ofthe act is general
and comprehensive, we liberally construe its subjectto determine whether it
-22-
No. 71666-2-1/23
embraces the subject of all the provisions expressed within the act."11 Thomas.
103 Wash. App. at 807-08. "A restrictive title, on the other hand, 'is one where a
particular part or branch of a subject is carved out and selected as the subject of
the legislation.'"12 Thomas, 103 Wash. App. at 808 (quoting State v. Broadawav.
133 Wash. 2d 118, 127, 942 P.2d 363 (1997)). "A restrictive title will not be liberally
regarded and provisions not within its subject are not given force." Thomas. 103
Wash. App. at 808
The relevant title to this inquiry is the word, phrase, or phrases following
"'AN ACT Relating to . . .' and preceding the first semi-colon." Thomas. 103 Wn.
App. at 808.
In 2001, a bill was passed which repealed the termination clause in former
RCW 9.95.0011 (2001), thereby preserving the existence of the ISRB.
Engrossed Third Substitute S.B. 6151, 57th Leg., 2d Spec. Sess. (Wash.
2001). This bill was given the title: "AN ACT Relating to the management ofsex
offenders in the civil commitment and criminal justice systems."
Whitaker alleges that this title was restrictive and the inclusion of the
language repealing the ISRB termination provision offormer RCW 9.95.0011
violated our state constitution. We disagree. The title of the bill was a general
title. It did not carve out and select a particular part of a subject; rather, it
11 Examples include: "AN ACT Relating to violence prevention"; "An Act Relating to
Community Colleges"; and "AN ACT Relating to industrial insurance." Thomas, 103 Wash. App. at
808 n.15.
12 Examples include: "An Act Relating to the acquisition ofproperty by public agencies";
"AN ACT Relating to local improvements in cities and towns"; and "AN ACT Relating tothe rights
and disabilities of aliens with respect to land." Thomas, 103 Wash. App. at 808 n.16.
-23-
No. 71666-2-1/24
focused on sex offenders generally. Construed liberally, the bill did embrace the
subject of all the provisions contained within it, as the ISRB deals with the
management of sex offenders. Accordingly, Whitaker's contention provides no
basis for appellate relief.
VIII
Whitaker next contends that the trial court erred by including an
impermissible condition in his felony judgment and sentence. The offending
condition, he alleges, is: "You shall submit to plethysmography exams, at your
own expense, at the direction of the community corrections officer." We agree.
In State v. Riles. 135 Wash. 2d 326, 957 P.2d 655 (1998), abrogated on
other grounds by State v. Valencia, 169 Wash. 2d 782, 239 P.3d 1059 (2010), our
Supreme Court upheld conditions requiring plethymograph testing as part ofthe
defendant's sexual deviancy treatment. Riles. 135 Wash. 2d at 343-45, 352 ("[A]
sentencing court may not order plethysmograph testing unless it also requires
crime-related treatment for sexual deviancy. . . . Plethysmograph testing does not
serve a general monitoring purpose."). Recently, we held that a trial court errs by
requiring that a defendant, as a condition of community custody, submit to
plethysmograph testing at the discretion of a community corrections officer.
State v. Land. 172 Wash. App. 593, 605-06, 295 P.3d 782 (2013). In concluding
that this violates a defendant's constitutional right to be free from bodily
intrusions, we held that "testing can properly be ordered incident to crime-related
treatment by a qualified provider" but "it may not be viewed as a routine
24
No. 71666-2-1/25
monitoring tool subject only to the discretion of a community corrections officer."
Land. 172 Wash. App. at 605-06.
Although Whitaker was required to engage in sexual deviancy treatment
as a condition of his sentence, the condition imposed regarding plethysmograph
testing was made subject to the discretion of a community corrections officer. In
order for plethysmograph testing to be properly imposed as a condition of
sentencing, it must be "incident to crime-related treatment by a qualified
provider." Land, 172 Wash. App. at 605 (emphasis added). A community
corrections officer is not a qualified provider. Therefore, on remand, this
condition must be stricken from Whitaker's sentence or modified to comply with
the authorities discussed herein.13
IX
Whitaker next contends that the trial court erred by permitting the trial to
proceed on an inadequate information. The information was inadequate, he
argues, because it failed to allege all of the essential elements ofeach crime-
specifically, that it failed to allege and state particular facts supporting the
essential element of "purpose or intent to gratify sexual desires of either party."
We disagree. Because sexual gratification is not an element of child molestation,
Whitaker's claim fails. See State v. Lorenz. 152 Wash. 2d 22, 34, 93 P.3d 133
(2004) ("Had the legislature intended a term to serve as an element ofthe crime,
13 In Whitaker's reply brief, his attorney raises, for the first time, an argumentwith respect
to another condition in Whitaker's judgmentand sentence—specifically, the requirement that he
consent to DOC home visits to monitor compliance with supervision. Given that this claim of error
was raised for the first time in the reply brief, we do not consider it. See, e^, State v. Chen, 178
Wash. 2d 350, 358 n.11, 309 P.3d 410 (2013).
-25-
No. 71666-2-1/26
it would have placed 'for the purposes of sexual gratification' in RCW 9A.44.083.
Rather, the definition of 'sexual contact' clarifies the meaning such that it
excludes inadvertent touching or contact from being a crime."). Definitions need
not be alleged in an information. State v. Johnson. Wn.2d , 325 P.3d 135,
138(2014).
X
Whitaker finally contends that the trial court erred by denying the defense
motion for a directed verdict made at the conclusion of the State's case in chief.
However, because Whitaker presented evidence following the trial court's denial
of his motion, he waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
presented by the State in its case in chief. See State v. Chavez. 65 Wash. App.
602, 605, 829 P.2d 1118 (1992) ("When a defendant presents evidence in his or
her behalf after the trial court has denied the defendant's motion to dismiss a
charge because of insufficient evidence, the defendant waives his or her right to
challenge the sufficiency ofthe evidence presented by the State"). No appellate
relief is warranted.
The judgment is affirmed. However, we remand to the trial court with
instructions to strike or modify the condition of sentence requiring Whitaker to
submit to plethysmograph testing at the discretion ofa community corrections
officer.
26-
No. 71666-2-1/27
Whitaker's personal restraint petition is dismissed.
^x
We concur:
^Q-fA/fV\r..-. \ A.) t LU
27