State v. Wilkins
Decision Date | 10 October 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 47835-8-II.,47835-8-II. |
Citation | 403 P.3d 890,200 Wash.App. 794 |
Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Edward James WILKINS, Appellant. |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Skylar Texas Brett, Law Office of Skylar Brett, P.O. Box 18084, Seattle, WA, 98118-0084, for Appellant.
Eric H. Bentson, Cowlitz County Prosecutor's Office, 312 S.W. 1st Ave., Rm. 105, Hall of Justice, Kelso, WA, 98626-1799, for Respondent.
PUBLISHED OPINION
Johanson, J.¶1 Edward Wilkins appeals his first degree child rape and first degree child molestation convictions. He contends that the convictions violate double jeopardy principles and that the State is judicially estopped from arguing otherwise. He further argues that the trial court should have redacted the victim's video statement, he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and he was denied a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. We affirm.
FACTS
¶2 In 2008, after living together for several months, Wilkins and NH's mother married. Wilkins cared for NH while NH's mother was at work.
¶3 In March 2008, when NH was three years old, NH reported stomach pains to her mother. A week later, NH reported that her "privates hurt." 2B Report of Proceedings (RP) at 370. On March 16, 2008, accompanied by Wilkins, NH's mother took NH to the hospital. Wilkins was asked to leave the examination room. At this time, the medical staff informed NH's mother that there were signs of penetration and that NH had a blister on her genitalia. NH tested positive for herpes simplex virus 2, also known as genital herpes. Genital herpes is passed on by genital-to-genital contact. NH's mother tried to discuss the matter with Wilkins, but he would change the subject and get angry. Wilkins eventually moved out of the home, and NH's mother relocated to Idaho with NH.
¶4 In 2011, NH began having nightmares about Wilkins and would wet her bed. NH's mother took NH to see a counselor. NH was interviewed by a forensic interviewer in Idaho in 2011. When the interviewer asked about inappropriate touching, NH stated that she did not " ‘want to talk about that.’ " 2B RP at 407.
¶5 A different interviewer met with NH in 2014, when NH was almost 10 years old. During the videotaped interview, NH was reluctant to speak, told the interviewer she was embarrassed, and cried. The interviewer asked NH about Wilkins. NH stated, 2A RP at 301-02. NH then stated that Wilkins had 2A RP 303-04.
¶6 NH then described an incident when Wilkins and her mom were still married where she was playing in the living room with her siblings and Wilkins took her into his bedroom. NH disclosed that Wilkins then told her to take off her pants and underwear. Wilkins then had NH get on the bed, and he got on top of her. NH disclosed that Wilkins then " ‘humped’ " her; NH explained that by this she meant his "bad spot ... [w]ent up mine." 2B RP at 415, 421. NH identified Wilkins's "bad spot" as his penis. 2B RP at 423. NH then indicated that " ‘up mine’ " referred to her vagina. 2B RP at 424.
¶7 Detective Charles Meadows reviewed Wilkins's medical records. The records showed that Wilkins had been diagnosed with genital herpes.
¶8 The State charged Wilkins by amended information with first degree child rape and first degree child molestation. During the hearing on the motion to amend the information, the prosecutor stated, 2A RP at 233. The prosecutor continued,
2A RP at 233. The trial court then asked another question, and the prosecutor did not finish his sentence.
¶9 When the judge questioned the prosecutor more about the amendment, the prosecutor stated, 2A RP at 234.
¶10 After a pretrial Ryan hearing, the trial court granted the State's motion to allow the jury to view NH's videotaped 2014 interview. The trial court ordered that the entire interview be played so that the jury would be given the opportunity to fully evaluate NH's credibility.
¶11 During trial, Detective Meadows testified that when he questioned Wilkins about his genital herpes, Wilkins stated that the diagnosis "wasn't enough evidence." 2B RP at 515. NH also testified. She testified that Wilkins got on top of her in the bed, his "bad spot" touched hers, and then his "bad spot" went inside her. 2A RP at 349.
¶12 The State filed a motion to admit evidence of Wilkins's prior child rape and child molestation convictions under ER 404(b). The trial court denied the State's request, finding that the evidence did not possess the substantially high degree of similarity required for admission as a common plan or scheme.
¶13 Wilkins then pointed out that NH's comments about Wilkins doing bad things to children during the forensic interview "may be contradictory" to the trial court's ER 404(b) ruling. 2A RP at 267. Wilkins agreed that "admissibility" may depend on how the trial court classifies the statements. The trial court distinguished NH's statements from the previously excluded prior bad act evidence by explaining that it was understandable that a child her age who believed she was hurt by a person would also believe that person would be a bad person, who did bad things to others.
¶14 During closing, the prosecutor argued, without objection, that Wilkins made an incriminating statement to Detective Meadows. The prosecutor told jurors that saying " ‘[t]hat's not enough evidence’ " is different than saying " ‘I didn't do it.’ " 2C RP at 558. The prosecutor continued, 2C RP at 558-59.
¶15 In rebuttal closing, the prosecutor addressed Wilkins's reliance on NH telling the interviewer in 2011 that she did not want to discuss Wilkins. The prosecutor stated, 2C RP at 600-01. The prosecutor went on to argue that asking NH more questions would be difficult because 2C RP at 606. Wilkins did not object to these statements.
¶16 The jury found Wilkins guilty as charged. At sentencing, the prosecutor stated, 2C RP at 631. The trial court agreed with both parties that the two offenses comprised the same criminal conduct, calculated Wilkins's offender score by counting the offenses as one crime, and sentenced him to 300 months on the rape conviction and 198 months on the molestation conviction, to be served concurrently. Wilkins appeals.
ANALYSIS
¶17 We first address whether the State is judicially estopped from arguing that the rape and molestation convictions do not violate double jeopardy principles based on the prosecutor's statements at the hearing to amend the information.2 The State asserts that the judicial estoppel elements have not been established. We agree.
¶18 When deciding the applicability of judicial estoppel, we focus on three factors: (1) whether the party's later position is clearly inconsistent with its earlier position, (2) whether accepting the new position would create the perception that a court was misled, and (3) whether a party would gain an unfair advantage from the change. Miller v. Campbell , 164 Wash.2d 529, 539, 192 P.3d 352 (2008).
¶19 During the hearing on the motion to amend the information, the prosecutor stated, 2A RP at 233. The prosecutor continued, 2A RP at 233. The trial court then asked another question, and the prosecutor did not finish his sentence.
¶20 The prosecutor stated twice "I think" the molestation would be dismissed. 2A RP at 233. The prosecutor also stated that if the jury finds Wilkins guilty of rape and molestation, "the Court would be dismissing the child molest in the first degree at some point, or —" 2A RP at 233. The judge then asked another question, and the prosecutor did not finish his sentence. These less-than-certain statements show that the prosecutor was not certain of the result if the jury found Wilkins guilty of both offenses. As such, Wilkins cannot show that the prosecutor took a later position that was " ‘clearly inconsistent’ " with his earlier position. Miller , 164 Wash.2d at 539, 192...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Teters
...157 Wn.2d 593, 611, 141 P.3d 54 (2006); State v. Wilkins, 200 Wn.App. 794, 808, 403 P.3d 890 (2017), review denied, 190 Wn.2d 1004 (2018). Wilkins that the two crimes were not the same in law and fact because the molestation occurred when the defendant had sexual contact with the victim for......
-
State v. Teters
...v. Land, 172 Wn. App. 593, 600, 295 P.3d 782 (2013); State v. French, 157 Wn.2d 593, 611, 141 P.3d 54 (2006); State v. Wilkins, 200 Wn. App. 794, 808, 403 P.3d 890 (2017), review denied, 190 Wn.2d 1004 (2018). Wilkins reasoned that the two crimes were not the same in law and fact because th......
-
State v. Jabs
...... rights because they did not require the jury to convict him. of separate and distinct acts, and the jury could have. convicted him multiple times for the same act. We disagree. . . "We. review double jeopardy claims de novo." State v. Wilkins , 200 Wn.App. 794, 805, 403 P.3d 890 (2017),. review denied, 190 Wn.2d 1004 (2018). "'The. constitutional guaranty against double jeopardy protects a. defendant . . . against multiple punishments for the same. offense.'" State v. Mutch , 171 Wn.2d 646,. 661, 254 P.3d 803 (2011) (quoting ......
-
State v. Jabs
...could have convicted him multiple times for the same act. We disagree. "We review double jeopardy claims de novo." State v. Wilkins, 200 Wn. App. 794, 805, 403 P.3d 890 (2017), review denied, 190 Wn.2d 1004 (2018). "'The constitutional guaranty against double jeopardy protects a defendant .......