Opinion
No. 25350-0-II.
Filed: January 5, 2001. DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Pierce County, No. 99-8-01240-0, Hon. Bryan Chushcoff, November 1, 1999, Judgment or order under review.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Pattie Mhoon, Attorney At Law, Ste. 488, 949 Market St., Tacoma, WA 98402.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Todd A. Campbell, Pierce Co. Deputy Pros. Atty., 5501 6th Ave., Tacoma, WA 98406-2697.
Barbara L. Corey-Boulet, Pierce County Deputy Pros. Atty., County City Bldg., 930 Tacoma Ave. S, Tacoma, WA 98402-2177.
Chantrelle Ann Redford appeals a juvenile adjudication that she is guilty of first degree child molestation, claiming insufficient evidence. We affirm.
Facts
Chantrelle Redford, who was fifteen at the time, abused her nine-year-old stepsister, A.R., on February 14, 1997. A.R. reported the abuse to a school counselor on November 16, 1998, after viewing a video at school about a young girl in a dysfunctional family. A.R.'s mother took her to Mary Bridge Children's Hospital's Child Abuse Intervention Department, where Cheryl Hanna-Truscott, an advanced registered nurse practitioner, interviewed and physically examined A.R.
The State charged Chantrelle with three counts of first degree child molestation. At trial, A.R. testified in detail about how Chantrelle had repeatedly touched her (A.R.'s) vagina on the evening of February 14, 1997, first while babysitting her and then later after their parents had returned home. A.R. further testified that Chantrelle had committed other similar acts of sexual abuse against her, beginning when she was four and ending when she was nine; that she did not tell anyone because Chantrelle had threatened to kill her; and that Chantrelle moved out of the house on February 15, 1997.
Hanna-Truscott testified that A.R.'s physical exam revealed a slight angulation in A.R.'s hymeneal tissue, which was consistent with, and 'very likely' the result of, healed trauma. But Hanna-Truscott could not say with reasonable medical certainty that abuse had occurred. Nonetheless, the physical findings, coupled with A.R.'s verbal disclosure of abuse, led Hanna-Truscott to conclude that there had been 'probable sexual abuse.'
Kim Redford, A.R.'s mother, testified that Chantrelle babysat A.R. in the Redfords' Spanaway home on February 14, 1997. She stated that Chantrelle moved from their home the next day, after a conversation with her and her husband regarding other behavior problems.
Chantrelle testified she had never abused A.R., and she denied threatening to kill her. She stated that she did not babysit A.R. on February 14, 1997, but rather was at her grandmother's home that evening.
The trial court entered the following pertinent findings and conclusions regarding Chantrelle's touching of A.R.:
FINDINGS OF FACT III
That the court finds the testimony of A.R. and her mother, Kim Redford credible.
IV
The court finds that on or about February 14, 1997, the respondent touched A.R.'s bare vagina with her hands; that this occurred in A.R.'s bed at her parent's residence in Puyallup, Washington, that this occurred while Chantrelle was babysitting her sister, A.R.; that the respondent was fifteen-years-old and that A.R. was nine-years-old at the time of the incident; and that A.R. was not married to the respondent.
V
The court finds that the respondent was touching A.R. to satisfy the respondent's sexual desires when she put her fingers on A.R.'s bare vagina and rubbed A.R.'s vaginal area, that this occurred in Chantrelle's bed while Chantrelle slept with A.R.
VI
The court finds credible the testimony of Cheryl Hanna Truscott, ARNP.
The court finds admissible the child hearsay statements A.R. made to Mrs. Hanna-Truscott as statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis pursuant to ER 803(a)(3).
VII
The court finds that though Mrs. Hanna-Truscott's overall assessment of her examination of A.R. was that the examination was consistent with sexual abuse and that sexual abuse was probable, that assessment does not confirm that the respondent was responsible for that sexual abuse.
VIII
The court finds that A.R.'s testimony was not consistent with coaching but consistent with a unique child who is intelligent beyond her years but at times demonstrated a maturity level of a younger child. The court finds that A.R. did not fabricate this incident as an act of hostility or revenge. The court observed that though A.R. admitted she had some animosity for Chantrelle, A.R. stated that Chantrelle was still a good sister. The court found compelling A.R.'s testimony that she loved Chantrelle and wanted her to get help.
IX
The court does not find that Kim Redford caused her daughter, A.R., to falsely accuse the respondent, Kim's adopted daughter, of this crime in order to force the respondent out of the home.
X
The court finds that even if A.R. had fabricated this incident, she would have been more likely to tell her parents sooner, at a time closer to when she may have been upset with Chantrelle. Instead, A.R. waited over nineteen months to report what Chantrelle had done to her. The court finds that A.R. was also afraid to disclose what Chantrelle had done to her because Chantrelle had threatened to kill her if she told anyone.
XI
The court finds compelling that A.R. made her initial disclosure of the sexual abuse after she viewed a video at school. A.R. identified herself with a female character in the video, a character that tried to be perfect and tried to hide the effects of family drug abuse. The court finds credible A.R.'s testimony that A.R. knew it was wrong to keep Chantrelle's actions a secret and was now ready to disclose what occurred to get Chantrelle help.
XII
This court finds not credible the testimony of the respondent. The court finds not credible the respondent's alibi that she was with her grandmother on the evening of February 14, 1997, the date of her parent's anniversary.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW II
That all relevant events occurred in Pierce County, Washington.
III
That the court finds that the respondent engaged in hand and digital contact with A.R.'s bare vagina.
IV
That the respondent is not married to the victim.
V
That CHANTRELLE REDFORD is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of CHILD MOLESTATION IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in that, on or about February 14, 1997, she had sexual contact with A.R. by rubbing and touching A.R.'s bare vagina with her fingers and her hand, the respondent being fifteen-years of age at the time of the offense and victim being nine years-old at the time of the offense and not married to the respondent.
VI
That the respondent touched A.R.'s vagina for the purpose of gratifying the respondent's sexual desire.
VII
That the respondent is not guilty of Child Molestation in the First Degree as charged in Counts Two and Three of the Original Information.
See Br. of Appellant at 9-12. The supplemental clerk's papers that Redford cites are not included in the record before this court.
Analysis I. Standard of Review
'Evidence is sufficient to support an adjudication of guilt in a juvenile proceeding if any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' State v. Echeverria, 85 Wn. App. 777, 782, 934 P.2d 1214 (1997) (citation omitted). 'A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.' State v. Hernandez, 85 Wn. App. 672, 675, 935 P.2d 623 (1997) (citation omitted). We 'defer to the trier of fact on issues involving conflicting testimony, credibility of the witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence.' Hernandez, 85 Wn. App. at 675 (citation omitted).
II. Sufficiency of Evidence
Chantrelle assigns error to several of the trial court's findings, claiming the State did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because 'no rational trier of fact could have reached a subjective state of certitude on the conflicting testimony here.' We disagree.
A person is guilty of child molestation in the first degree when 'the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual contact with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim.' RCW 9A.44.083. 'Sexual contact' means '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.' RCW 9A.44.010(2). Sexual gratification is not an essential element of the crime; rather, it is a definitional term clarifying the meaning of the essential and material element of sexual contact. State v. T.E.H., 91 Wn. App. 908, 915, 960 P.2d 441 (1998). A court can infer sexual gratification from the nature and circumstances of the act itself. See T.E.H., 91 Wn. App. at 916.
For example, to ensure that the touching was not inadvertent, or for some other proper reason.
A.R. testified in detail that: (1) Chantrelle touched her while they were alone together on the evening of February 14, 1997; (2) with her hand, Chantrelle touched A.R.'s 'front private' over clothing and directly on skin; (3) Chantrelle touched A.R.'s vaginal area with her hand and her hand moved around; (4) it 'hurt' when Chantrelle touched her vaginal area; (5) Chantrelle said she was sorry after the touching; (6) after A.R.'s parents returned home that evening, Chantrelle instructed her to ask for permission to sleep in Chantrelle's bed 'like [she] really wanted to'; and (7) Chantrelle again touched A.R.'s 'front private' when she slept in Chantrelle's bed.
Kim Redford corroborated A.R.'s testimony that Chantrelle babysat A.R. on the evening of February 14, 1997, and that Chantrelle did not leave the home until February 15, 1997. Cheryl Hanna-Truscott testified that: (1) it is not abnormal for there to be no concrete evidence of abuse; and (2) her assessment of 'probable abuse' was based on the 'worrisome' physical findings and A.R.'s clear and detailed statements to her during the interview and exam. Hanna-Truscott's testimony, regarding statements A.R. made to her during the interview and exam, was consistent with A.R.'s testimony at trial.
Although Chantrelle denied the allegations and claimed that she had not been present in the Redford home on the evening of February 14, 1997, the trial court resolved the credibility issue and the conflict in favor of the State. The trial court drew reasonable inferences based on all the evidence and testimony presented. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of the essential elements of first degree child molestation, and the trial court's adjudication of guilt.
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 pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
We concur: MORGAN, J., BRIDGEWATER, J.