State Of Washington v. Silverio Santiago

I" ILEA
COURTO
DIVISION II B
2015,> N 13
41111: 14
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OP
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 44704 -5 -II
Respondent,
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SILVERIO SANTIAGO,
Appellant.
WORSWICK, P. J. — Silverio Santiago appeals his third degree child molestation
conviction. He argues that ( 1) the trial court violated his right to confront witnesses by not
witness about a separate sexual encounter; ( 2)
allowing him to cross -examine the complaining
the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by misstating the burden of proof, encouraging the
jury to disbelieve Santiago, and improperly bolstering evidence; ( 3) insufficient evidence
supports his child molestation conviction; and ( 4) the trial court violated his right to counsel by
imposing court- appointed attorney fees without the support of evidence that he could pay.
Because ( 1) the error in restricting Santiago from cross -examining the complaining witness was
harmless, ( 2) the prosecutor did not commit reversible misconduct, (3) sufficient evidence
supports his conviction, and ( 4) the trial court did not err by imposing attorney fees, we disagree
and affirm the conviction and imposition of fees.
No. 44704 -5 - II
FACTS
A. Encounter with MM
Silverio Santiago was a friend of MM' s family, 1 and was the boyfriend of her older sister.
MM, who was fourteen, invited 21- year -old
Silverio2
to her house when no one else was home.
They kissed and removed some of their clothing. Silverio engaged in sexual intercourse with
MM.
About a year later, MM told her friend about the encounter with Silverio and another
sexual encounter with his 23- year -old brother, Francisco. MM' s mother learned of the
disclosure and confronted MM. At first, MM admitted to her mother only that she had had a
sexual encounter with a man named Armando. 3 The next day, however, she disclosed to her
mother sexual encounters with Armando, Francisco, and finally Silverio. MM' s mother alerted
authorities.
Silverio was charged in an amended information with one count of third degree child
molestation and one count of third degree child rape. At Silverio and Francisco' s request, the
court joined Silverio' s trial with that of Francisco, who was charged with the same crimes
against MM as Silverio was.
1 MM, a minor, is identified here by her initials to protect her privacy.
2 Because Silverio Santiago and his brother Francisco Santiago share the same last name, we
refer to them by their first names for clarity. We intend no disrespect.
3
Any criminal proceedings against Armando remained separate from the Santiagos' trial.
2
No. 44704 -5 -II
B. Pretrial Motion: Evidence ofMM's Encounter with Armando
At a pretrial hearing, Silverio argued that MM' s statements regarding her alleged sexual
encounters with Armando should be admitted. Silverio acknowledged that such testimony may
be barred under the rape shield statute,4 but argued that its probative value outweighed its
prejudicial effect. Silverio also argued that the testimony was relevant to MM' s credibility
regarding whether she, in fact, had sexual intercourse with Silverio or whether she made up the
allegations regarding Silverio in response to her mother' s continued questioning. According to
Silverio, MM first disclosed the encounter with Armando to her mother, then later revealed the
encounters with the Santiagos. Silverio further argued that MM' s statement was admissible as a
prior inconsistent statement and that he needed to use it as impeachment to show that her story
changed. Silverio also wanted to demonstrate that MM' s descriptions of the three encounters
with Armando and both Santiagos) were identical except for the location of the encounters,
5
which fact would have further impeached her credibility.
4 RCW 9A.44. 020. The rape shield statute generally excludes evidence relating to the past
sexual behavior of the complaining witness. It is designed to guard against the prejudicial
inference that a victim' s chastity and veracity are related. State v. Sheets, 128 Wash. App. 149,
155, 115 P.3d 1004 ( 2005).
5
Silverio' s counsel argued, " We have a young lady who, other than the issue of geography, is
giving the exact same description of all three sexual encounters. She doesn' t really distinguish
between them. The conversation is the same. The condoms are the same. The - - how the
clothes come off is the same. Everything is the same. And in order for the jury to understand
that giving the same story, they have to be presented
she' s with all three stories." Verbatim
Report of Proceedings ( VRP) ( Feb. 25, 2013) at 18.
3
No. 44704 -5 -II
The State argued that MM' s testimony about the three incidents was not identical, as
Silverio had claimed. 6 The State acknowledged that there was a " level of similarity" between the
three encounters as described, but that MM' s descriptions of the encounters were not exactly the
same. Verbatim Report of Proceedings ( VRP) ( Feb. 25, 2013) at 24.
MM stated that her sexual encounter with Armando occurred after the encounter with
Silverio. Because the encounter with Armando occurred after the encounter with Silverio, the
court ruled that it was not past sexual behavior and the rape shield law did not apply. However,
the trial court ruled that the revelation about MM' s encounter with Armando was unfairly
prejudicial, and there was nothing so unusual about the similarities between the encounters as
described by MM to make the probative value of those similarities outweigh the prejudice.
C. Trial Testimony
In compliance with the trial court' s ruling, Santiago did not present evidence of MM' s
description of her encounter with Armando. However, MM testified on cross -examination that
she initially lied by omission to her mother about her sexual encounters by not telling her about
Silverio until after further questioning from her mother and after revealing her encounter with
6
The With Silverio, they [ MM and Silverio] were texting. He came over to
prosecutor stated, "
her house. They started kissing. They were on the living room couch. He asked if she wanted
to have sex. She said sure. They had sex on the couch. He used a condom, put his penis in her
vagina.... With Francisco, she says they were ... supposed to go to the [ Kitsap County Fair],
but they went bowling instead. She says her sister and [ Silverio] left, leaving her and Francisco
alone at Evergreen Park, parked in a car. They were kissing. He asked if she wanted to have
sex. She said sure. They had sex in the back seat of the car. He used a condom, put his penis in
her vagina. Armando, she says she was at Armando' s house practicing for a dance. He offered
to take her home. On the way home, he parked the car. They began kissing, asked if she wanted
to have sex. She said, It' s okay with me. And again, he was wearing a condom, puts his penis in
her vagina." VRP ( Feb. 25, 2013) at 23 -24.
4
No. 44704 -5 - II
Francisco. She also testified on cross -examination. that her description of the encounter with
Silverio was very similar to her description of the encounter with Francisco.
Silverio did not testify at trial. Detective Stroble testified about a phone call he made to
Silverio, in which Silverio told him that " he knew who [ MM] was; that he ultimately ended up at
her mom' s house; that the two of them kissed; that they ... ended up naked on the couch and, at
some point, decided not to have sex for a couple of reasons." VRP ( Feb. 28, 2013) at 250.
Detective Stroble also testified that Silverio said he " felt [MM] was obsessed with him; that she
called him all the time to tell him that she loved him and called him ' baby.'" VRP ( Feb. 28,
2013) at 253.
Unlike Silverio, Francisco admitted at trial that he had sexual intercourse with MM but
presented the affirmative defense that MM had misrepresented her age to him.
D. Motion To Dismiss Child Molestation Charge
At the close of evidence, Silverio moved to dismiss the child molestation count because
the State had presented no evidence of sexual contact apart from kissing and sexual intercourse,
so there was no evidence supporting a child molestation charge that did not also support the child
rape charge. The trial court denied the motion.
E. Closing Arguments
In closing arguments, the State reminded the jury multiple times that Silverio had no
burden of proof. It argued, for example: " Silverio has no burden of proof. None. The burden of
proof in Silverio' s case is completely and totally on the State of Washington. The Defense can
freely offer theories. They don' t have to prove any of these theories." VRP ( Feb. 28, 2013) at
327. In a set of slides shown during the State' s closing argument, many of the slides were
5
No. 44704 -5 -II
clearly labeled " Silverio Santiago" or " Francisco Santiago." Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 103 -09.
However, the final slide, labeled " Conclusion" and not indicating which brother or brothers it
applied to, said: " Hold the defense to its burden." CP at 108.
Additionally in closing, the State argued to the jury: " Now, the presumption of
innocence, though, isn' t the same as the presumption of truthfulness or the presumption of
honesty or the presumption of credibility. You may not have heard of those, because they don' t
exist. You don' t have to go back in that jury room and say, well, they told me this happened, so
that must be the way it happened. No. You judge their credibility just like you would judge
everybody else' s credibility. You judge Francisco' s credibility, and you judge the credibility of
Silverio through the statements that he made to Detective [ Stroble]." 7 VRP (Feb. 28, 2013) at
324.
Finally, the slides shown during the State' s closing argument asked the jury: ````Do you
believe [ MM] ?" CP at 108. The State also asked the jury to consider why MM would tell the
truth about her encounter with Francisco but fabricate an encounter with Silverio. The slides
also laid out a case for believing MM, reminding the jury of her demeanor and lack of motive to
lie. The slides encouraged the jury a few times, worded in various ways, to weigh MM' s
credibility against that of the Santiagos.
Silverio argued in closing that MM' s description of her encounters with Francisco and
Silverio were very similar, which undermined her credibility. He also reminded the jury that
MM had initially failed to tell her mother about Silverio, even after telling her about Francisco.
7 The prosecutor mentioned Detective Swayze here, but Silverio spoke only to Detective Stroble.
The prosecutor appears to have misspoken by naming the wrong detective.
No. 44704 -5 -II
Silverio also argued: " So what about the fact that it appears [ MM] didn' t lie about having
sex with Francisco? It does appear that way. He testified he had sex with her. She testified he
had sex with her. Does that make her accusation against [ Silverio] more believable? No." VRP
Feb. 28, 2013) at 352. Apparently in response, the prosecution argued: " We know Francisco
had sex with [ MM]. We know she was telling the truth about that. Why she would come and
make this up about Silverio, I don' t know." VRP ( Feb. 28, 2013) at 373.
A jury found Silverio guilty of third degree child molestation, but failed to reach a verdict
as to the third degree child rape charge. 8 Silverio moved for arrest of judgment j/udgment
notwithstanding the verdict under CrR 7.4, arguing that the jury could not have found him guilty
of third degree child molestation if it had not found him guilty of rape, because the lack of
verdict on the rape charge showed that the jury had not found that Silverio had sexual intercourse
with MM. He argued that, absent a finding of sexual intercourse, there was no evidence of any
sexual contact.
F. Assessment ofFees
At sentencing, the trial court imposed $ 1, 13.5 in court- appointed attorney fees and $ 1, 000
in other legal financial obligations ( LFOs). The court entered a finding in the judgment and
sentence that Silverio had the ability or likely future ability to pay these LFOs. The trial court
did not address Silverio' s current or future ability to pay these LFOs on the record, and Silverio
did not object to the finding.
Silverio appeals.
8 The jury failed to reach a verdict as to either count against Francisco.
7
No. 44704 -5 -II
ANALYSIS
I. RIGHT To PRESENT A DEFENSE BY CROSS -EXAMINING ADVERSE WITNESSES
Silverio argues that the trial court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights
when it refused to let him cross -examine MM about her encounter with Armando. U.S. CONST.
amends. VI, XIV. Silverio refers to this allegation in his brief as his right to " confront"
witnesses, but his legal contentions relate to his right to present a defense, not his confrontation
clause rights. We disagree that his right to present a defense was violated because the error was
harmless.
A. Standard ofReview
The federal and state constitutions guarantee the right to present a defense. State v.
Wittenbarger, 124 Wash. 2d 467, 474, 880 P.2d 517 ( 1994); U. S. CONST. amends. V, VI, XIV;
WASH. CONST. art. I, § 22. But this constitutional right is not absolute and does not extend to
irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. State v. Maupin, 128 Wash. 2d 918, 925, 913 P.2d 808 ( 1996).
B. Sixth Amendment Violation: Harmless Error
1. Victim 's Statements Admissible
Both the federal and state constitutions protect the right of a defendant to present a
defense, which includes meaningful cross -examination of adverse witnesses. U. S. CONST.
amend VI; WASH. CONST. art. I, § 22, see Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 17 -19, 87 S. Ct.
1920, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1019 ( 1967). But this right is not absolute. State v. Darden, 145 Wash. 2d 612,
620, 41 P.3d 1189 ( 2002). The defendant' s right to present a defense does not extend to
presenting otherwise inadmissible evidence. State v. Aguirre, 168 Wash. 2d 350, 362 -63, 229 P.3d
669 ( 2010). If evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible, the burden shifts to the State to
8
No. 44704 -5 -II
show that the evidence is so prejudicial as to disrupt the fairness of the fact -finding process.
State v. Jones, 168 Wash. 2d 713, 720, 230 P.3d 576 ( 2010).
Here, Silverio sought to introduce evidence, of MM' s original statement to her mother
that she had a sexual encounter only with a man named Armando. He argued that her description
of the sexual encounter with Armando suggested that she fabricated the description of the
encounter with Silverio in two respects. First, the fact that she initially told her mother about
Armando but failed to tell her about the Santiagos suggested that she had fabricated the story
about Silverio in response to her mother' s continued questioning. Therefore, the testimony
would reveal prior inconsistent statements. Second, he argued that her description of the
encounter with Armando was identical to her description of her encounters with the Santiagos,
which undermined her credibility.
This evidence would have been relevant for the reasons Silverio identified: it would have
tended,to show that MM described a sexual encounter to her mother before she told her about the
Santiagos; it also would have tended to show that MM' s description of all three sexual
encounters bore similarities.
Furthermore, the evidence was admissible: the trial court found that the rape shield
statute did not apply, and the parties do not challenge this ruling. The evidence was also
No. 44704 -5 -II
admissible under the ER 403 balancing test.9 The probative value of the evidence was not
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. ER 403. The evidence had probative
value regarding MM' s veracity, because it demonstrated her inconsistent reporting about the
sexual encounters and demonstrated that she delayed telling her mother about the Santiagos even
after she told her about Armando. Also, there was very little danger of unfair prejudice: because
MM was underage and unable to consent, evidence of her sexual encounters did not tend to show
her character for promiscuity, but instead showed sexual encounters to which MM could not
legally consent. State v. Carver, 37 Wn. App. 122, 124, 678 P.2d 842 ( 1984). Therefore, the
danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of this evidence,
and ER 403 was not a bar to its admissibility.
Because the trial court here excluded relevant and otherwise admissible evidence, we
look to whether this error was harmless.
2. Harmless Error
Error of a constitutional magnitude is harmless if we are convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt that any reasonable jury would have reached the same result without the error. Jones, 168
9 In State v. Aguirre, our Supreme Court held that the scope of the right to present a defense
does not extend to the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence.... The admissibility of
evidence under the rape shield statute, in turn, ``is within the sound discretion of the trial court. "'
168 Wash. 2d 350, 363, 229 P.3d 669 ( 2010) ( quoting State v. Hudlow, 99 Wash. 2d 1, 17, 659 P.2d
514 ( 1983) ( other citations omitted)). In State v. Jones, decided in the same term as Aguirre, our
Supreme Court held that alleged violations of the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense
are reviewed de novo. 168 Wash. 2d 713, 719, 230 P.3d 576 ( 2010), see also State v. Iniguez, 167
Wash. 2d 273, 280 -81, 217 P.3d 768 ( 2009). We follow Aguirre, recognizing that the Sixth
Amendment right to present a defense does not extend to inadmissible evidence, and we review a
trial court' s ruling on admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion.
10
No. 44704 -5 -II
Wn.2d at 724. We hold that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and does not
require reversal.
Silverio sought to present two arguments to the jury by presenting the evidence of MM' s
story about Armando: first, he sought to show that she delayed telling her mother about her
encounter with.the Santiagos, although she described another sexual encounter earlier. Second,
he sought to show that her stories were identical. Silverio was able to make both of these points
without presenting the excluded testimony. Silverio was able to show that MM' s story changed
over time. He was able to cross -examine MM about her initial lie by omission to her mother
about her sexual activity. Similarly, Silverio was able to show the jury that MM' s description of
her encounters with Francisco and Silverio were very similar. Therefore, Silverio was able to
make both arguments without MM' s testimony about Armando. We are convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt that a reasonable jury would have reached the same result without the error.
II. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Silverio argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct on four occasions in closing
argument and that the cumulative effect of these incidents requires reversal. We disagree.
A. Standard ofReview
The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I,
section 3 and article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution guarantee the right to a fair
trial. State v. Finch, 137 Wash. 2d 792, 843, 975 P.2d 967 ( 1999). Prosecutorial misconduct may
deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial. State v. Davenport, 100 Wash. 2d 757,
762, 675 P.2d 1213 ( 1984).
11
No. 44704 -5 -II
To prevail on a prosecutorial misconduct claim, a defendant must show that in the
context of the record and all the trial circumstances, the prosecutor' s conduct was improper and
prejudicial. State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wash. 2d 438, 442, 258 P.3d 43 ( 2011). We consider the
prosecutor' s alleged improper conduct in the context of the total argument, the issues in the case,
the evidence addressed in the argument, and the jury instructions. State v. Anderson, 153 Wn.
App. 417, 430, 220 P.3d 1273 ( 2009). To show prejudice, a defendant must show a substantial
likelihood that the misconduct affected the jury verdict. Thorgerson, 172 Wash. 2d at 442 -43. The
cumulative effect of multiple or repeated incidents of prosecutorial misconduct can warrant
reversal. State v. Weber, 159 Wash. 2d 252, 279, 149 P.3d 646 ( 2006).
If a defendant fails to object to misconduct at trial, he waives the issue unless he
establishes that the misconduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that an instruction could not
have cured the prejudice. Thorgerson, 172 Wash. 2d at 443. We focus less on whether the
prosecutor' s misconduct was flagrant and ill- intentioned and more on whether the resulting
prejudice could have been cured. State v. Emery, 174 Wash. 2d 741, 762, 278 P.3d 653 ( 2012).
We consider whether there is a substantial likelihood that the misconduct affected the jury' s
verdict. State v. Dhaliwal, 150 Wash. 2d 559, 578, 79 P.3d 432 ( 2003).
B. No Reversible Prosecutorial Misconduct
1. Burden Shifting
Silverio argues that the prosecutor improperly shifted the burden of proof to Silverio
when he asked the jury to " hold the defense to its burden." See CP at 108. This phrase appeared
on a slide shown to the jury during closing arguments. This statement apparently referred to
Francisco' s charges. Francisco had argued the affirmative defense that MM had misrepresented
12
No. 44704 -5 -I1
her age to Francisco. Silverio argues that this slide failed to differentiate between the two cases,
and therefore, the prosecutor misled the jury into thinking that Silverio, who argued no
affirmative defense, had the burden of proof. We disagree.
Taking the prosecutor' s argument and the slide in the whole context of the argument,
evidence, and jury instructions, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct. Throughout most of
the slide show, each slide clearly bore the name of the defendant to whom it referred in large
letters at the top ( for example, " Silverio Santiago" or " Francisco Santiago" in bold.) See CP at
103 -09. Two slides labeled " Silverio Santiago" clearly stated that " Silverio has no burden of
proof." CP at 106. The prosecutor reiterated this in his oral argument: " Silverio has no burden
of proof. None. The burden of proof in Silverio' s case is completely and totally on the State of
Washington. The Defense can freely offer theories. They don' t have to prove any of these
theories." VRP ( Feb. 28, 2013) at 327. When he referred to Francisco' s burden of proof, he
explicitly was only referring to Francisco' s case.
Taken in the context of the entire argument and all the slides, the prosecutor made
abundantly clear that Silverio had no burden of proof. Therefore, the prosecutor did not shift the
burden of proof and, thus, did not commit misconduct.
2. Presumption ofInnocence
Silverio also argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by undermining his
presumption of innocence. The prosecutor argued to the jury in closing that the " presumption of
innocence ... isn' t the same as the presumption of truthfulness or the presumption of honesty or
the presumption of credibility. You may not have heard of those, because they don' t exist."
VRP (Feb. 28, 2013) at 324. Silverio argues that the presumption of innocence necessarily
13
No. 44704 -5 -II
equates to a presumption that the defendant told the truth, and that the presumption of innocence
requires the jury to presume the defendant spoke honestly. We disagree.
When the prosecutor asked the jury to " judge the credibility of Silverio through the
statements that he made to Detective [ Stroble], " 10 and argued that there was no presumption of
honesty, truthfulness, or credibility, he did not commit misconduct. VRP ( Feb. 28, 2013) at 324.
Without citing authority, Silverio argues that the presumption of innocence includes a
presumption of truthfulness, honesty, and credibility. But the law is clear that the jury is the sole
judge of credibility. State v. Summers, 107 Wn. App. 373, 389, 28 P.3d 780 ( 2001); State v.
Dietrich, 75 Wash. 2d 676, 677 -78, 453 P.2d 654 ( 1969); State v. Holbrook, 66 Wash. 2d 278, 279,
401 P.2d 971 ( 1965). Therefore, the prosecutor' s statements that the jury was to judge Silverio' s
credibility and that the presumption of innocence did not include a presumption of truthfulness
were an accurate statement of the law and did not constitute misconduct.
3. Mischaracterized Burden ofProof
Silverio argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by mischaracterizing the
burden of proof by arguing that the jury must find that the State' s witnesses were lying in order
to acquit Silverio. He points to the final slide in the closing argument, which asked the jury: " Do
you believe [ MM] ?" CP at 108. Other slides highlighted that MM had no motive to lie. The
prosecutor in closing argument emphasized the unlikelihood that MM would have wanted to get
10
As stated above, Silverio told Detective Stroble that he knew [ MM]; that he was with MM at
her mom' s house; that the two of them kissed; that they were on the couch naked and, decided
not to have sex. Silverio also told Detective Stroble that Silverio " felt [ MM] was obsessed with
him; that she called him all the time to tell him that she loved him and called him ' baby.'" VRP
Feb. 28, 2013) at 253.
14
No. 44704 -5 - II
the Santiagos in trouble or otherwise fabricate the story. In effect, Silverio argues here that the
prosecutor committed misconduct by encouraging the jury to find that MM was credible. We
disagree.
This argument is without merit. Silverio mischaracterizes the prosecutor' s argument.
The prosecutor here merely reminded the jury of its duty to weigh conflicting testimony. Such
arguments are valid under our law: a prosecutor may tell the jury that it is free to reject testimony
that conflicts with more credible testimony. State v. Evans, 163 Wash. App. 635, 644, 260 P.3d
934 ( 2011). The prosecutor did not commit misconduct, and Silverio' s argument fails.
4. Improper Bolstering
Silverio argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by improperly bolstering the
credibility of the State' s witnesses. He argues that the prosecutor encouraged the jury to convict
Silverio based on the evidence against Francisco. Silverio fails to show flagrant and ill -
intentioned misconduct, so his claim fails.
In rebuttal to Silverio' s closing argument," the prosecutor argued, " We know Francisco
had sex with [ MM]. We know she was telling the truth about that. Why she would come and
make this up about Silverio, I don' t know." VRP ( Feb. 28, 2013) at 373. Silverio did not object
to this argument. He now argues that this argument improperly bolstered MM' s credibility,
encouraged the jury to convict him based on the evidence against Francisco, and operated as
character evidence attempting to show conformity with MM' s general character for truthfulness.
11
In his closing argument, Silverio argued: "[ W]hat about the fact that it appears [ MM] didn' t lie
about having sex with Francisco? It does appear that way. He testified he had sex with her. She
testified he had sex with her. Does that make her accusation against [ Silverio] more believable?
No." VRP ( Feb. 28, 2013) at 352.
15
No. 44704- 5- 11
If a defendant fails to object to misconduct at trial, he waives the issue unless he
establishes that the misconduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that an instruction could not
have cured the prejudice. Thorgerson, 172 Wash. 2d at 443. We do not reverse on the basis of a
prosecutor' s improper remarks if they are " in direct response to a defense argument," so long as
they " do not ``go beyond what is necessary to respond to the defense and [ they] must not bring
before the jury matters not in the record, or be so prejudicial that an instruction cannot cure
them. "' State v. Francisco, 148 Wn. App. 168, 178 -79, 199 P.3d 478 ( 2009) ( quoting State v.
Dykstra, 127 Wash. App. 1, 8, 110 P.3d 758 ( 2005)).
Here, assuming without deciding that the comments constituted misconduct, we hold that
Silverio fails to show that the prosecutor committed flagrant and ill-intentioned misconduct. The
State has wide latitude to argue reasonable inferences from the evidence, including inferences of
witness credibility. Thorgerson, 172 Wash. 2d at 448. The Santiagos requested joinder of their
trials, which guaranteed that the jury would hear evidence against both of them. The prosecutor
responded to Santiago' s argument that MM had told the truth only about her sexual encounter
with Francisco. Had Silverio objected to this argument, the trial court would have had the
opportunity to give a curative instruction that could have neutralized any possible prejudice from
the prosecutor' s challenged statement. Silverio has not shown that arguing such an inference
about MM' s credibility was flagrant and ill-intentioned misconduct. Silverio' s failure to object
to misconduct that is not flagrant and ill-intentioned operates as a waiver, and his argument fails.
Silverio argues that the cumulative effect of repeated instances of prosecutorial
misconduct requires reversal. Weber, 159 Wash. 2d at 279. But Silverio demonstrates only one
16
No. 44704 -5 -II
possible instance of misconduct; therefore, there can be no cumulative effect. His prosecutorial
misconduct arguments fail.
III. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Silverio relies on the jury' s failure to convict him of rape to argue that insufficient
evidence supports his conviction of third degree child molestation. We disagree because
sufficient evidence supports the conviction.
A. Standard ofReview
When reviewing a sufficiency challenge to a conviction, we determine whether, after
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wash. 2d
216, 221 -22, 616 P.2d 628 ( 1980). A sufficiency challenge admits the truth of the State' s
evidence and accepts all reasonable inferences from it. State v. O' Neal, 159 Wash. 2d 500, 505,
150 P.3d 1121 ( 2007).
B. Sufficient Evidence of Child Molestation
Silverio argues that insufficient evidence supports his conviction of third degree child
molestation. Because the jury failed to reach a verdict on the third degree rape charge, Silverio
reasons that the jury found that Silverio did not have sexual intercourse with MM. Aside from
sexual intercourse, the evidence showed only that MM and Silverio kissed and removed their
clothing. Silverio argues that kissing is not sexual contact, and therefore, the jury did not find
any sexual contact to support the child molestation charge.
Third degree child molestation occurs when a defendant has sexual contact with a victim
between the ages of fourteen and sixteen to whom he is not married, and where the defendant is
17
No. 44704 -5 -I1
more than forty -eight months older than the victim. See RCW 9A.44. 089. Third degree child
rape bears the same elements, except that sexual intercourse, rather than mere sexual contact,
must be proven. See RCW 9A.44. 079. " Sexual contact" is defined in RCW 9A.44. 010( 2) as
any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying
sexual desire of either party or a third party." The Supreme Court has held that kissing, even
when it leaves a " hickey" 'or " passion mark," is not sufficient sexual contact to support an
indecent liberties conviction. State v. R. P., 122 Wash. 2d 735, 736, 862 P.2d 127 ( 1993).
Contrary to Silverio' s assertions, a jury' s failure to convict him of child rape does not
prove that they found that an element of child molestation was not proven. State v. Goins, 151
Wash. 2d 728, 733, 92 P.3d 181 ( 2004). " Juries return inconsistent verdicts for various reasons,
including mistake, compromise, and lenity." Goins, 151 Wash. 2d at 733. Instead of looking to
whether the jury produced, consistent verdicts, we consider only whether sufficient evidence
supports each conviction. Goins, 151 Wash. 2d at 733, see also State v. Ng, 110 Wash. 2d 32, 48, 750
P.2d 632 ( 1988).
Here, sufficient evidence supports Silverio' s conviction. Green, 94 Wash. 2d at 221 -22;
O' Neal, 159 Wash. 2d at 505. MM testified that she and Silverio kissed and removed some of their
clothing, then had sexual intercourse. Regardless of the jury' s failure to convict Silverio of third
degree child rape, sufficient evidence existed to support his conviction of third degree child
molestation, and Silverio' s argument fails.
18
No. 44704 -5 -II
IV. LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
Silverio argues that the trial court violated his federal constitutional right to counsel when
it ordered him to pay the cost of his court- appointed attorney. Silverio also argues that RCW
10. 01. 160, allowing repayment of attorney fees, violates the Sixth Amendment. We disagree.
A. Standard ofReview
We review a claim of a denial of Sixth Amendment12 rights de novo. Jones, 168 Wash. 2d
at 719. We also review de novo the interpretation and application of statutes, including the
imposition of legal financial obligations ( LFOs). State v. Stone, 165 Wash. App. 796, 806, 268
P.3d 226 ( 2012).
B. Issue Waived
At sentencing, the trial court imposed a total of $2, 135 in fees, including $ 1, 135 in
attorney fees. Silverio argues that the trial court violated his right to counsel when it imposed the
attorney fees without first finding that he had the present or future ability to pay. Silverio waived
this issue by failing to raise it below. State v. Blazina, 174 Wash. App. 906, 911, 301 P.3d 492,
review granted, 178 Wash. 2d 1010 ( 2013). We decline to allow the appellant to raise the issue for
the first time on appeal. Blazina, 174 Wash. App. at 911.
C. RCW 10. 01. 160( 3) Does Not Violate the Sixth Amendment
Silverio argues that RCW 10. 01. 160( 3), allowing repayment of attorney fees, violates his
Sixth Amendment right to counsel. He argues that Washington courts erroneously allow a trial
court to impose repayment without first making a determination of the defendant' s actual future
12 U. S. CONST. amend. VI.
19
No. 44704 -5 - II
ability to pay, which violates the Sixth Amendment by chilling the exercise of the right to
counsel. Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 94 S. Ct. 2116, 40 L. Ed. 2d 642 ( 1974). We disagree.
Washington' s repayment statute, RCW 10. 01. 160, does not violate the Sixth Amendment
by chilling the right to counsel. State v. Blank, 131 Wash. 2d 230, 239, 930 P.2d 1213 ( 1997); State
v. Curry, 118 Wash. 2d 911, 916, 829 P.2d 166 ( 1992); State v. Smits, 152 Wash. App. 514, 523 -24,
216 P.3d 1097 ( 2009); State v. Crook, 146 Wn. App. 24, 27, 189 P.3d 811 ( 2008). As Silverio
acknowledges, our Supreme Court has consistently held that Fuller does not require a court to
find that the accused has the actual future ability to pay before ordering payment of court-
appointed counsel fees. ( Citing Blank, 131 Wash. 2d at 239; Curry, 118 Wash. 2d at 916; Smits, 152
Wn. App. at 523 -24; Crook, 146 Wn. App. at 27). The court is required to find that the
defendant will be able to pay, but RCW 10. 01. 160( 3) does not require the trial court to enter
formal, specific findings of the defendant' s ability to pay when it initially imposes LFOs.
Instead, when a defendant is unable to pay the cost of his LFOs, including attorney fees,
Washington law permits him to petition for modification of the payments. RCW 10. 01. 160( 4).
Because Washington courts have consistently held that Fuller does not require a judicial
determination of the defendant' s actual ability to pay before ordering repayment, Silverio' s
argument fails. Therefore, we hold that Silverio waived the issue of his ability to pay and
decline to reconsider the Washington case law holding that RCW 10. 01. 160 does not violate the
Sixth Amendment under Fuller.
20
No. 44704 -5 -II
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2. 06. 040, it is so ordered.
We concur:
21