State v. Louis, 29648-9-II
| Decision Date | 02 December 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 29648-9-II,29648-9-II |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. PAUL A. ST. LOUIS, Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Washington |
Appeal from Superior Court of Cowlitz County. Docket No. 02-8-00348-9. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 11/19/2002.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Robert W. Jr Huffhines, Attorney at Law, 206 N Pacific Ave, Kelso, WA 98626-3414.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Tierra a Busby, Cowlitz County Pros Atty Ofc, 871 11th Longview, WA 98632.
Paul St. Louis appeals his conviction of first degree rape of a child, arguing the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements by the victim without first finding the victim competent at the time she made the statements. We find no error and, thus, affirm.
On September 15, 2001, C.C. was home alone with her brothers, Austin and Brent, and Austin's friend, Paul St. Louis. C.C. was upstairs in her room when St. Louis excused himself to go upstairs to use the restroom. After a while, St. Louis and C.C. came downstairs together.
When her parents returned home, C.C. told her father that St. Louis had put his fingers inside of her. She explained that it had happened in her bedroom and she was dressed, but she was wearing different panties. C.C. also told her father she wasn't supposed to tell anybody.
C.C.'s father told his wife what C.C. had said, and the couple decided to go to speak with St. Louis and his parents. C.C.'s father thought St. Louis seemed `emotionally upset,' but St. Louis denied doing anything to C.C. Report of Proceedings 1 (RP) at 50-51.
Later that night, C.C. complained that she was having pain. Her mother checked her genitalia and found redness and discoloration. When she asked what had happened, C.C. told her mother that St. Louis had put his finger in her earlier.
Dr. Stewart R. Copeland examined C.C. on September 17, 2001. He examined C.C.'s genitalia and concluded there was `possible trauma.' RP 1 at 40.
The juvenile court held a Ryan1 and fact-finding hearing on September 17, 2002. Although reluctant to testify, C.C. did say that when she was three years old, a boy touched her private parts and caused a bruise.2 C.C. stated that she had told her mother and her brother, Austin, about the incident. At the time of the hearing, she did not recall who the boy was. She was also unable to identify the boy in the courtroom. The trial judge asked C.C. if she had told the truth and she said she had.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ruled that C.C.'s statements to her parents were admissible and that C.C. was competent to have made the statements to her parents.
St. Louis argues that the court erred in admitting the hearsay statements because it did not clearly find that C.C. was competent at the time she made the statements. St Louis points to the court's use of the present tense in its conclusion that C.C. `does have the ability to understand things that happen to her and can express how they happened.' App. Br. at 8
St. Louis cites State v. C.J., for the proposition that before a child's hearsay statements may be admitted, the child must be shown to be competent at the time the statements were made. State v. C.J., 108 Wn. App. 790, 795, 32 P.3d 1051 (2001), judgment rev'd, 148 Wn.2d 672 (2003). But the Supreme Court overruled State v. C.J., holding that `the proponent of a hearsay statement from a child abuse victim who is unavailable to testify at trial due to incompetency need only meet the statutory requirements of RCW 9A.44.120, and . . . no additional showing of competency at the time of the hearsay statement is required.' C.J., 148 Wn.2d at 675.
Thus, the State was required to show only that...
To continue reading
Request your trial