State of Washington v. Jeremy Joseph Alvarez ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                                                 FILED
    SEPTEMBER 19, 2019
    In the Office of the Clerk of Court
    WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DIVISION THREE
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,                            )
    )          No.     35567-5-III
    Respondent,               )
    )
    v.                                       )          ORDER WITHDRAWING
    )          OPINION
    JEREMY JOSEPH ALVAREZ,                          )
    )
    Appellant.                )
    THE COURT on its own motion finds that the opinion filed September 17, 2019, should
    be withdrawn.
    THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, the opinion filed September 17, 2019, is hereby
    withdrawn and a new opinion shall be filed hereafter.
    FOR THE COURT:
    _______________________________________
    Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.
    Chief Judge
    FILED
    OCTOBER 29, 2019
    In the Office of the Clerk of Court
    WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DIVISION THREE
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,                          )        No. 35567-5-III
    )
    Respondent,            )
    )
    v.                              )        UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    )
    JEREMY JOSEPH ALVAREZ,                        )
    )
    Appellant.             )
    LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — A jury found Jeremy Alvarez guilty of one count of
    second degree rape of a child and acquitted him of another. He appeals and asserts three
    arguments for reversal of his conviction. In a statement of additional grounds for review,
    he asserts over 20 grounds for reversal. We reject his arguments.
    Alvarez also requests that we order the trial court to strike several community
    custody conditions and to strike the $200 criminal filing fee. We partly agree and direct
    the trial court to strike some of the contested community custody conditions and the
    criminal filing fee.
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    FACTS
    Alvarez, unable to find a place to live, moved in with his father (Mr. Alvarez), his
    father’s fiancé (Ms. Porter), and her daughter (J.P.). Alvarez was 26, and J.P. was 13.
    Several days after he moved in, Alvarez came to J.P.’s room around midnight and
    asked if she wanted to watch a movie. J.P. agreed because she was not sleeping well.
    They sat on the couch in the living room. Alvarez asked to sit closer to J.P., but she
    refused. Alvarez scooted over anyway. J.P. later claimed that Alvarez touched her breast
    and vaginal areas.
    After a while, J.P. went upstairs to her bedroom. Fifteen minutes later, Alvarez
    came upstairs and entered her bedroom. Alvarez began rubbing lotion on J.P.’s feet and
    then her legs. Alvarez kept moving further up J.P.’s legs until he touched her vagina.
    Alvarez then inserted his fingers and used his tongue on J.P.’s vagina. Eventually, J.P.
    asked him to stop and leave, which he did. The entire event lasted about an hour and one-
    half. J.P. went to school the next day and reported the incident to her counselor, Lisa
    Ulrich.
    Officer Jory Parish, a resource officer at Hanford High School, received a call
    from Lisa Ulrich. While interviewing J.P., Officer Parish learned the incident occurred in
    Pasco, so she contacted Pasco police.
    2
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    City of Pasco Police Officer Michael Nelson responded. After speaking with
    Officer Parish, Officer Nelson spoke with J.P. J.P. generally reported that she had
    engaged in a sexual act with an individual named Jeremy. After that, Officer Nelson
    drove to Ms. Porter’s employment to inform her what J.P. reported. While there, Officer
    Nelson also spoke with Mr. Alvarez on the telephone, who was out of town. Mr. Alvarez
    asked Officer Nelson to make sure that his son was out of the home when he returned
    later that day. Officer Nelson drove to the home, told Alvarez about J.P.’s accusation,
    and told Alvarez that his father had directed him to leave the home. Alvarez left.
    Later that evening, J.P. and Ms. Porter returned home. Ms. Porter collected the
    pants, underwear, and bra J.P. wore the night before. The underwear was in the laundry
    basket. One item in the basket, a towel, had been previously used by Alvarez. Detective
    Jesus Romero collected J.P.’s clothing from Ms. Porter. Later, Mari Murstig, a child
    forensic interviewer, met with and interviewed J.P.
    The State charged Alvarez with one count of rape of a child in the second degree.
    After unsuccessful plea negotiations, the State added a second charge of rape of a child in
    the second degree.
    At trial, the State’s first witness was Officer Nelson. He testified that when he met
    with Alvarez at the house, Alvarez appeared to have just awakened. The State asked
    3
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Officer Nelson whether he told Alvarez about J.P.’s allegation, and how Alvarez reacted.
    Alvarez objected, and requested a sidebar. Alvarez argued that the question called for
    improper testimony because the testimony would comment on Alvarez’s right to remain
    silent. The State clarified that it was only eliciting testimony about Alvarez’s facial
    expression, not about his silence or his right to remain silent. The trial court agreed, and
    allowed the testimony. Officer Nelson testified that when he told Alvarez of J.P.’s
    allegation, Alvarez “had no expression whatsoever on his face . . . . No shock or anything
    like that.” 2 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 345.1
    The State next called Ms. Murstig. She testified that she reviewed Officer
    Nelson’s report before she interviewed J.P. When the State asked Ms. Murstig whether
    J.P.’s disclosures to her were consistent with Officer Nelson’s report, Alvarez objected on
    the basis of hearsay, that it called for improper opinion testimony, and that it would not be
    helpful to the trier of fact. He did not argue that the opinion would violate his right to a
    jury trial. The trial court overruled Alvarez’s objections and allowed the testimony. Ms.
    Murstig testified that J.P.’s disclosures in the interview with her were consistent with
    J.P.’s disclosures to Officer Nelson.
    1
    During closing arguments, the State did not repeat this testimony nor did it refer
    to this testimony in any way.
    4
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    The State also called J.P. She testified about the downstairs and the upstairs
    incidents. Her testimony about the downstairs incident was inconsistent. She originally
    testified that Alvarez touched her breasts and her vagina over her clothing as they
    watched a movie. The State later showed her a videotape of a prior interview she had
    given. After this, J.P. testified that during the movie, Alvarez had touched her
    underneath her clothes and had inserted a finger inside her vagina.
    Kaylene Folks, a forensic scientist with the Washington State Patrol Crime
    Laboratory, tested J.P.’s underwear recovered from the laundry basket. She testified that
    the inside crotch area tested positive both for human saliva and human male DNA.2 She
    explained that the saliva found on the inside crotch of the underwear was deposited wet.
    This made it highly improbable that the saliva could have been transferred from Alvarez’s
    discarded towel in the laundry basket.
    She also testified that the body fluid found on the inside crotch of J.P.’s underwear
    could only have been saliva. She explained she used the Phadebas test, which shows a
    positive result only if the substance tested has a high concentration of the enzyme
    amylase. Saliva has an amylase concentration about 1,000 times higher than other bodily
    2
    Deoxyribonucleic acid.
    5
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    fluids. And although body fluids other than saliva contain amylase, “they are in . . .
    concentrations much lower than those having saliva [and] wouldn’t be detected by this
    Phadebas test.” 3 RP at 524.
    The jury found Alvarez not guilty of the downstairs charge, but guilty of the
    upstairs charge. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a sentence of 110 months and
    entered multiple community custody conditions.
    Alvarez timely appealed.
    ANALYSIS
    A.     TESTIMONY ABOUT ALVAREZ’S REACTION
    Alvarez contends the State improperly elicited testimony on his prearrest silence,
    violating his constitutional right.
    The State first argues that demeanor—lack of surprise or shock—is not silence.
    The State fails to cite authority to support its argument. Demeanor is not always silence.
    Anger or embarrassment do not denote silence. But a lack of emotion is sufficiently
    similar to silence that any difference is without a distinction. We reject the State’s first
    argument.
    The State next argues that the United States Supreme Court has recently clarified
    that the right to remain silent does not arise, prearrest, until one invokes it. And because
    6
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    state and federal constitutional provisions against self-incrimination are coextensive, to
    the extent prior Washington decisions are inconsistent, those decisions no longer are good
    law.
    In response to this, Alvarez urges this court to perform a Gunwall3 analysis; that is,
    to analyze the issue under independent Washington State constitutional principles. We
    decline to do so. Prior authority from our high court constrains our conclusion that the
    state and federal constitutional provisions on this issue are coextensive.
    When a claim is asserted under both the Washington Constitution and the United
    States Constitution, the first inquiry is whether the asserted right is more broadly
    protected under the state constitution rather than its federal counterpart. State v. Earls,
    
    116 Wash. 2d 364
    , 374, 
    805 P.2d 211
    (1991). Washington courts have long held that the
    protections of article I, section 9, are “coextensive with, not broader than, the protection
    of the Fifth Amendment [to the United States Constitution].” 
    Id. at 374-75
    (citing State v.
    Moore, 
    79 Wash. 2d 51
    , 57, 
    483 P.2d 630
    (1971). Because the Washington Constitution
    does not provide broader protections, a Gunwall analysis is unnecessary, and we begin
    our analysis with federal law. 
    Id. 3 State
    v. Gunwall, 
    106 Wash. 2d 54
    , 
    720 P.2d 808
    (1986).
    7
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the
    States through the Fourteenth Amendment, generally prohibits the State from
    commenting about the defendant’s failure to speak. State v. Easter, 
    130 Wash. 2d 228
    , 238-
    39, 
    922 P.2d 1285
    (1996). However, the United States Supreme Court has recently
    addressed the difference between prearrest and postarrest silence in Salinas v. Texas, 
    570 U.S. 178
    , 
    133 S. Ct. 2174
    , 
    186 L. Ed. 2d 376
    (2013).
    In Salinas, the defendant agreed to speak with officers about a murder
    investigation, but when the officers questioned the defendant on whether the shell casings
    from the crime scene would match the defendant’s firearm, the defendant “‘[l]ooked
    down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, cl[e]nched his hands in his lap,
    [and] began to tighten up.’” 
    Id. at 182.
    Eventually, more evidence led to the defendant’s
    arrest. 
    Id. At trial,
    the defendant did not testify. 
    Id. However, the
    State used the
    defendant’s reaction to the officer’s interview question about the shell casings as
    evidence of the defendant’s guilt. 
    Id. In a
    plurality decision, the Court found that, unless a defendant expressly invokes
    the privilege, the State can use a defendant’s prearrest silence as evidence of guilt and it
    would not violate the Fifth Amendment. 
    Id. at 186;
    see also State v. Terry, 
    181 Wash. App. 880
    , 888, 
    328 P.3d 932
    (2014); State v. Magana, 
    197 Wash. App. 189
    , 195, 
    389 P.3d 654
    8
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    (2016), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Johnson, 
    4 Wash. App. 2d
    352, 
    421 P.3d 969
    , review denied, 
    192 Wash. 2d 1003
    , 
    340 P.3d 260
    (2018). Therefore, because the
    defendant did not invoke the privilege and there was no evidence that the defendant was
    deprived of the ability to voluntarily invoke the privilege under the circumstances, “the
    prosecution’s use of his noncustodial silence did not violate the Fifth Amendment.”
    
    Salinas, 570 U.S. at 186
    . A two-justice concurrence would have concluded that the Fifth
    Amendment right to remain silent does not arise prior to an arrest. 
    Id. at 191-93
    (Thomas,
    J., Scalia, J. concurring).
    Here, we are concerned with prearrest silence. The testimony was short: after
    Officer Nelson informed Alvarez of J.P.’s allegations, Alvarez had no shock or other
    expression on his face. Alvarez was not under arrest, he was not prevented from invoking
    his right to remain silent, and he did not invoke this right. Under Salinas, five justices
    would conclude that the State was entitled to present testimony about Alvarez’s prearrest
    silence. See 
    Magana, 197 Wash. App. at 195
    (following the Salinas plurality).
    Alvarez argues that Salinas was a plurality decision and is, thus, not controlling
    precedent. We have difficulty with this argument, given that the result we reach here is
    consistent with how five United States Supreme Court justices would rule.
    9
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Were we to conclude that such testimony was improper, this author, but not a
    majority, would conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As
    noted previously, the substance found on the inside crotch of J.P.’s underwear was
    definitely saliva, and because the saliva was deposited wet on the underwear, it was
    highly improbable that it could have been transferred from Alvarez’s discarded towel.
    The only plausible explanation is that Alvarez performed oral sex on J.P.4 Had the trial
    court excluded Officer Nelson’s comment that Alvarez showed no reaction to J.P.’s
    accusation, scientific evidence of Alvarez’s guilt was insurmountable.
    B.     EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VICTIM’S CONSISTENT STATEMENTS
    Alvarez contends the trial court erred by overruling his objection to Ms. Murstig’s
    opinion that J.P.’s statements to her were consistent with J.P.’s earlier statements to an
    officer. He argues this error is both evidentiary and constitutional.
    4
    Both concurring judges believe a jury could reasonably find that the saliva was
    deposited on the inside crotch of J.P.’s underwear by someone spitting, perhaps
    accidentally while talking. This author disagrees. First, Alvarez argued this, and the jury
    rejected his argument. Second, a trained officer or technician would not have spit on the
    underwear. Even while testifying, the technician was careful enough not to hold the
    underwear near her mouth while she spoke. Third, the location of the saliva—inside
    crotch—strongly corroborates J.P.’s testimony and strongly contradicts accidental
    spitting. Finally, if Alvarez believed that someone intentionally spit on J.P.’s underwear,
    he would have so argued. He did not.
    10
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    1.      Evidentiary error
    Alvarez argues that Ms. Murstig’s opinion was inadmissible under ER 702 because
    it was not helpful to the trier of fact and because a lay person could determine whether
    two statements are consistent. We agree, but conclude that the error was harmless.
    A trial court’s decision to admit expert testimony is reviewed for an abuse of
    discretion. State v. Kirkman, 
    159 Wash. 2d 918
    , 927, 
    155 P.3d 125
    (2007). “An abuse of
    discretion occurs only when the decision of the court is ‘manifestly unreasonable, or
    exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.’” State v. McCormick, 
    166 Wash. 2d 689
    , 706, 
    213 P.3d 32
    (2009) (quoting State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 
    79 Wash. 2d 12
    , 26, 
    482 P.2d 775
    (1971)).
    Generally, testimony about the veracity of witnesses is inappropriate opinion
    testimony. See State v. Quaale, 
    182 Wash. 2d 191
    , 200, 
    340 P.3d 213
    (2014). A lay opinion
    is admissible if it is rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to the
    determination of a fact in issue, and not based on specialized knowledge. ER 701. Ms.
    Murstig’s opinion that J.P.’s statements to Officer Nelson were consistent with J.P.’s
    statements to her was an opinion not based on Ms. Murstig’s specialized knowledge. It,
    therefore, was an improper expert opinion.
    11
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    But the improper admission of her opinion was harmless error. The jury did not
    believe Ms. Murstig that J.P.’s stories were consistent. It acquitted Alvarez on the
    downstairs charge, the charge that depended on J.P.’s credibility. The jury found Alvarez
    guilty only on the charge that did not depend on J.P.’s credibility, the upstairs charge.
    That charge was supported by forensic evidence, evidence that Alvarez could not credibly
    dispute.
    2.      Constitutional error not reviewable
    Alvarez argues that Ms. Murstig’s opinion was inadmissible under the Washington
    Constitution article I, sections 21 and 22, and the United States Constitution amendment
    VI because it violated his constitutional right to a jury trial. But Alvarez did not raise this
    issue at the trial court.
    The general rule is that appellate courts will not consider an issue raised for the
    first time on review. 
    Kirkman, 159 Wash. 2d at 926
    . However, a claim of error may be
    raised for the first time on appeal if it is a manifest error affecting a constitutional right.
    RAP 2.5(a)(3); In re Dependency of M.S.R., 
    174 Wash. 2d 1
    , 11, 
    271 P.3d 234
    (2012). To
    meet RAP 2.5(a)(3)’s requirements, an appellant must demonstrate (1) the error is truly of
    constitutional magnitude, and (2) the error is manifest. 
    Kirkman, 159 Wash. 2d at 926
    .
    12
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    In analyzing the asserted constitutional interest, we do not assume the alleged error
    is of constitutional magnitude. State v. Scott, 
    110 Wash. 2d 682
    , 687, 
    757 P.2d 492
    (1988).
    The claim must be one of truly constitutional magnitude. We look to the asserted claim
    and assess whether, if correct, it implicates a constitutional interest as compared to
    another form of trial error. 
    Id. at 689-91.
    After determining the error is of constitutional magnitude, we determine whether
    the error was manifest. To determine whether manifest error was committed, there must
    be a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and
    identifiable consequences in the trial of the case. State v. O’Hara, 
    167 Wash. 2d 91
    , 99, 
    217 P.3d 756
    (2009).
    RAP 2.5(a)(3) serves as a “gatekeeping function.” State v. Lamar, 
    180 Wash. 2d 576
    , 583, 
    327 P.3d 46
    (2014). The “gatekeeping function” of the rule is different from
    the analysis of reviewing the claimed error. 
    Id. “The requirements
    under RAP 2.5(a)(3)
    should not be confused with the requirements for establishing an actual violation of a
    constitutional right or for establishing lack of prejudice under a harmless error analysis if
    a violation of a constitutional right has occurred.” 
    Id. With these
    standards in mind we first determine whether Alvarez’s claim is truly
    of constitutional magnitude. Generally, no witness in a criminal trial may offer testimony
    13
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    in the form of an opinion regarding the veracity of the defendant. 
    Kirkman, 159 Wash. 2d at 927
    . Similarly, no witness in a criminal trial may offer an opinion on the veracity of a
    witness. 
    Quaale, 182 Wash. 2d at 200
    . Such opinions violate the defendant’s constitutional
    right to a jury trial, which includes the independent determination of the facts by the jury.
    
    Kirkman, 159 Wash. 2d at 927
    . Here, Alvarez claims the trial court erred in allowing Ms.
    Murstig to offer an opinion on the veracity of J.P., who testified at trial. We conclude
    that Alvarez’s claim is truly of constitutional magnitude.
    But not all opinions touching on a witness’s veracity qualify as manifest error.
    “‘Manifest error’ requires a nearly explicit statement by the witness that the witness
    believed the accusing victim.” 
    Kirkman, 159 Wash. 2d at 936
    . This heightened standard is
    consistent with precedent holding that the manifest error exception is narrow. 
    Id. Here, Ms.
    Murstig did not testify that she believed J.P. Instead, she testified that
    J.P.’s statements to her were consistent with J.P.’s statements to an officer. This is
    insufficient to constitute manifest error.
    C.     JUDICIAL COMMENTS ON THE EVIDENCE
    Alvarez contends the trial court commented on the evidence three separate times.
    Alvarez did not object to any of the court’s purported comments; however, a judicial
    comment on the evidence is an error of constitutional magnitude that can be raised for the
    14
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    first time on appeal. State v. Sivins, 
    138 Wash. App. 52
    , 59, 
    155 P.3d 982
    (2007);
    RAP 2.5(a)(3).
    Article IV, section 16 of the Washington Constitution states that “[j]udges shall
    not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon, but shall declare
    the law.” In other words, judges are prohibited from commenting on the evidence.
    WASH. CONST. art. IV, § 16; State v. Levy, 
    156 Wash. 2d 709
    , 721, 
    132 P.3d 1076
    (2006).
    “[A]ny remark that has the potential effect of suggesting that the jury need not consider
    an element of an offense could qualify as judicial comment.” 
    Levy, 156 Wash. 2d at 721
    .
    “It is sufficient if a judge’s personal feelings about a case are merely implied.” 
    Sivins, 138 Wash. App. at 58
    . This important constitutional principle serves to protect the jury
    from being unduly influenced by the court’s opinion on the evidence or credibility. 
    Id. Washington courts
    use a two-step analysis to determine whether reversal is
    required due to a judicial comment on the evidence. 
    Levy, 156 Wash. 2d at 723
    . To
    ascertain whether a court’s conduct or remarks rise to a comment on the evidence, courts
    examine the facts and circumstances of the case. 
    Sivins, 138 Wash. App. at 58
    . If there
    was a judicial comment, it is “presumed to be prejudicial, and the burden is on the State to
    show that the defendant was not prejudiced, unless the record affirmatively shows that no
    prejudice could have resulted.” 
    Levy, 156 Wash. 2d at 723
    .
    15
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Court told a juror during voir dire the victim was 12 or 13
    Alvarez’s first contention is that the court told a person, who ultimately became 1
    of the 12 jurors, that it believed the victim was 12 or 13 years old. During jury selection,
    the juror advised the court her sister had been sexually assaulted as a teenager. The court
    inquired whether the juror could be fair and impartial, and noted its belief that the
    purported victim was 12 or 13.
    The trial court should not have expressed its personal belief of the victim’s age,
    but should have told the juror that the State contends the victim was 12 or 13. The trial
    court’s comment was technically improper. We are nevertheless satisfied that the
    comment could not have resulted in prejudice. Here, both J.P. and her mother testified
    that J.P. was 13 at the time of the purported offenses. Alvarez did not rebut this
    testimony in any way.
    Alvarez cites State v. Jackman, 
    156 Wash. 2d 736
    , 
    132 P.3d 136
    (2006) for the
    proposition that a trial court’s instruction as to the age of the victim is a comment on the
    evidence that requires reversal and retrial. Jackman is distinguishable.
    In Jackman, the State charged the defendant with three counts of sexual
    exploitation of a minor, three counts of communication with a minor for immoral
    purposes, four counts of furnishing alcohol to a minor, and one count of patronizing a
    16
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    juvenile prostitute. 
    Id. at 740.
    The victims testified at trial and gave their dates of birth to
    support the State’s contention that they were all minors at the time of the purported
    crimes. 
    Id. at 740,
    742-43. The trial court instructed the jury, and 11 of the 12 to-convict
    instructions contained the victims’ dates of birth consistent with their trial testimonies.
    
    Id. at 742.
    The defendant did not object to these instructions, and he was convicted on all
    counts. 
    Id. at 741.
    On appeal, the defendant argued that the 11 instructions were
    improper judicial comments on the evidence. The Supreme Court agreed. 
    Id. at 744.
    The Supreme Court then concluded that the State could not prove that the improper
    comments resulted in no prejudice. 
    Id. at 745.
    In so concluding, the court noted that two
    of the victims admitted at trial they had lied to the defendant about their ages, and the jury
    could have found that these and the other victims lied at trial about their ages. 
    Id. at 744
    n.7, 745.
    In contrast here, the jury could not have found J.P.’s age to be anything other than
    13. The trial court’s isolated comment during voir dire that it thought the victim was 12
    or 13 was de minimis, compared to Jackman, where the trial court reiterated dates of birth
    on 11 of the 12 to-convict instructions.
    Court read charging document with J.P.’s date of birth
    17
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Alvarez’s second contention asserts the court commented on the evidence by
    reading the charging document to the jury, which contained J.P.’s date of birth. The trial
    court read the charging document, and thereafter added:
    The first amended information in this case is only an accusation against the
    defendant . . . . You are not to consider the filing of the . . . information or
    its contents as proof of the matters charged.
    It is your duty to determine the facts in this case from the evidence
    produced in court.
    2 RP at 207. An accurate summary of the accusations, together with an appropriate
    explanation that the summary is not evidence, does not constitute a judicial comment on
    the evidence. 
    Sivins, 138 Wash. App. at 61
    .
    Jury instruction contained Alvarez’s date of birth
    Alvarez’s final contention argues the court commented on the evidence because
    the jury instructions contained his date of birth. The cover page of the court’s amended
    instructions contained Alvarez’s date of birth. The cover page was not read to the jury,
    and Alvarez’s date of birth under his name is hardly noticeable. Even had the jury
    noticed it, the court’s instructions contained an admonition for the jury to consider only
    evidence that was admitted through testimony or exhibits and to disregard any possible
    comments on the evidence by the court. We presume the jury followed these instructions.
    18
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Here, Mr. Alvarez testified to his son’s age. His testimony was not contested. To
    obtain a conviction, the State was not required to prove Alvarez’s age. It was only
    required to prove that Alvarez was more than 36 months older than 13-year-old J.P. The
    jury could see that Alvarez—physically very large—was an adult. For these reasons, we
    conclude that the State has established that no prejudice could have resulted from the
    appearance of Alvarez’s date of birth on the cover page to the court’s instructions.
    CUMULATIVE ERROR
    Alvarez contends the trial court erred multiple times and if these errors, alone, do
    not warrant reversal, the errors cumulatively warrant reversal. Cumulative error claims
    are constitutional issues, which an appellate court reviews de novo. State v. Clark, 
    187 Wash. 2d 641
    , 649, 
    389 P.3d 462
    (2017). To receive relief based on the cumulative error
    doctrine a “defendant must show that while multiple trial errors, ‘standing alone, might
    not be of sufficient gravity to constitute grounds for a new trial, the combined effect of
    the accumulation of errors most certainly requires a new trial.’” 
    Id. (quoting State
    v. Coe,
    
    101 Wash. 2d 772
    , 789, 
    684 P.2d 668
    (1984)). When there are no errors or the errors have
    little to no effect on the trial’s outcome, the cumulative error doctrine does not apply.
    State v. Greiff, 
    141 Wash. 2d 910
    , 929, 
    10 P.3d 390
    (2000).
    19
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Here, the trial court erred when it allowed Ms. Murstig to testify that J.P.’s
    statements to Officer Nelson were consistent with J.P.’s statements to her. But this
    clearly was not prejudicial because the jury’s verdicts showed the jury did not believe Ms.
    Murstig. The trial court also erred by twice commenting on the evidence. But both of
    these comments were very minor. We are persuaded that these minor errors had no effect
    on the outcome of the trial. The jury convicted Alvarez based on solid forensic evidence,
    evidence for which Alvarez had no credible alternative explanation.
    COMMUNITY CUSTODY CONDITIONS
    Alvarez challenges seven of his community custody conditions. The State first
    responds that Alvarez cannot challenge the community custody conditions because he had
    an opportunity to collaboratively draft them but did not participate, and he did not object
    to them at the trial court. We disagree with the State’s initial argument.
    An unlawful sentence may be challenged for the first time on appeal. State v.
    Ford, 
    137 Wash. 2d 472
    , 477, 
    973 P.2d 452
    (1999). Defendants may generally challenge
    community custody conditions that are contrary to statutory authority for the first time on
    appeal. State v. Bahl, 
    164 Wash. 2d 739
    , 745, 
    193 P.3d 678
    (2008). We review community
    custody conditions for an abuse of discretion. State v. Irwin, 
    191 Wash. App. 644
    , 652, 
    364 P.3d 830
    (2015). “An abuse of discretion occurs only when the decision of the court is
    20
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    ‘manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.’”
    
    McCormick, 166 Wash. 2d at 706
    (quoting 
    Carroll, 79 Wash. 2d at 26
    ). The abuse of
    discretion standard applies when this court is reviewing a crime-related condition. 
    Irwin, 191 Wash. App. at 656
    .
    Generally, courts may impose crime-related conditions on a defendant during their
    time in community custody. RCW 9.94A.505(9), .703(3)(f). A “‘[c]rime-related
    prohibition’ . . . prohibit[s] conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime
    for which the offender has been convicted . . . . ” RCW 9.94A.030(10). “‘Directly
    related’ includes conditions that are ‘reasonably related’ to the crime.” Irwin, 191 Wn.
    App. at 656 (quoting State v. Kinzle, 
    181 Wash. App. 774
    , 785, 
    326 P.3d 870
    (2014)).
    Conditions 4 & 5: Consuming or unlawfully possessing controlled substances
    Alvarez argues conditions 4 and 5 are not crime related and are unconstitutionally
    vague. We agree in part.
    Condition 4 reads: “not consume controlled substances except pursuant to lawfully
    issued prescriptions.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 121. Alvarez’s contention that this
    condition is not related to his crime of conviction is unpersuasive. This condition is a
    waivable condition under RCW 9.94A.703(2)(c). A waivable condition does not have to
    21
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    be crime related in order to be imposed. In re Pers. Restraint of Brettell, 
    6 Wash. App. 2d
    161, 173, 
    430 P.3d 677
    (2018).
    Alvarez argues in the alterative that condition 4 is unconstitutionally vague
    because it is unclear whether it includes marijuana and, if it does, how it interacts with
    Washington’s legalization of marijuana coupled with the differing jurisdictions in which
    marijuana remains illegal. We also find this argument unpersuasive. The abuse of
    discretion standard applies when this court is reviewing a community custody condition
    for vagueness. 
    Irwin, 191 Wash. App. at 652
    .
    The due process clause contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
    States Constitution and article I, section 3 of the Washington Constitution require that
    laws not be vague. 
    Magana, 197 Wash. App. at 200
    . The protections against vagueness
    extend to community custody conditions because they can subject a person to
    incarceration. State v. Sanchez Valencia, 
    169 Wash. 2d 782
    , 791-92, 
    239 P.3d 1059
    (2010).
    A condition is not vague if it (1) provides ordinary people with fair warning of the
    proscribed conduct, and (2) has standards that are definite enough to “‘protect against
    arbitrary enforcement.’” 
    Magana, 197 Wash. App. at 200
    -01 (internal quotation marks
    omitted) (quoting 
    Bahl, 164 Wash. 2d at 753
    ).
    22
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Condition 4 is not unconstitutionally vague. Under federal law, marijuana is a
    schedule I controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. § 812(c)(10), (17). Washington law defines
    “controlled substance” as a substance included in schedule I under federal law. Former
    RCW 69.50.101(d) (2015). Therefore, it is clear, marijuana remains a “controlled
    substance” under Washington law. As Alvarez notes, a health care professional cannot
    write a prescription for marijuana, but only issue valid documentation authorizing the
    medical use of marijuana. RCW 69.51A.030(2)(b); see generally RCW 69.50.308.
    Because a person cannot obtain a prescription for marijuana, the sentencing condition
    allowing the use of controlled substances with a lawfully issued prescription does not
    apply to marijuana. The condition provides fair warning to Alvarez and its terms are
    adequately defined to prevent arbitrary enforcement. 
    Magana, 197 Wash. App. at 200
    -01.
    Alvarez also contends condition 5 is not crime related and is unconstitutionally
    vague. Condition 5 reads: “not unlawfully possess controlled substances while in
    community custody.” CP at 121. This condition is not a mandatory or waivable
    condition under RCW 9.94A.703(1)-(2). Thus, it is a discretionary condition under
    RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f) and it must be crime related in order to be imposed.
    The State presented no evidence that consuming or possessing controlled
    substances was in any way related to the crime for which Alvarez was convicted. The
    23
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    State argues that Alvarez has a history of drug abuse, drug addiction, and drug related
    convictions. While this may be true, community custody conditions must be “relate[d] to
    the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW
    9.94A.030(10) (emphasis added). “‘Directly related’ includes conditions that are
    ‘reasonably related’ to the crime.” 
    Irwin, 191 Wash. App. at 656
    (quoting Kinzle, 181 Wn.
    App. at 785). The State’s argument revolves around Alvarez’s history, not the specific
    facts related to this conviction. Because there is no evidence that any type of controlled
    substance was related to the conviction at hand, community custody condition 5 is not
    crime related. 5
    Conditions 12 & 13: Advise [Department of Corrections (DOC)] of sexual
    partners and disclose sexual history to sexual partners
    Alvarez argues conditions 12 and 13, which require Alvarez to advise the DOC of
    current sexual partners and to disclose his sexual criminal history to sexual partners are
    not crime related and violate the First Amendment. We disagree with both contentions.
    Because Alvarez was convicted of rape of a child, conditions requiring him to disclose
    sexual relationships to DOC and inform sexual partners of his status are crime related.
    See In re Pers. Restraint of Tillman, No. 51181-9-II, slip op. at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. June 5,
    5
    Alvarez’s argument that condition 5 is also unconstitutionally vague is moot.
    24
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    2018) (unpublished) http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2051181-9-
    II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf.6
    Alvarez’s First Amendment contentions also fail. An offender’s freedom may be
    limited when the restriction is “‘reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs
    of the state and public order.’” State v. Riley, 
    121 Wash. 2d 22
    , 37-38, 
    846 P.2d 1365
    (1993) (quoting Malone v. United States, 
    502 F.2d 554
    , 556 (9th Cir. 1974)). Alvarez’s
    conditions do not limit his freedom of association; it merely affects his privacy. See In re
    Pers. Restraint of Waggy, 
    111 Wash. App. 511
    , 518, 
    45 P.3d 1103
    (2002). The Washington
    Supreme Court has recognized the State has a legitimate interest in informing the public
    about “potentially dangerous individuals.” In re Pers. Restraint of Meyer, 
    142 Wash. 2d 608
    , 620-21, 
    16 P.3d 563
    (2001). The conditions requiring Alvarez to disclose sexual
    partners to DOC and to disclose his history to sexual partners are conditions reasonably
    necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the state and public order. 
    Riley, 121 Wash. 2d at 37-38
    .
    6
    Under GR 14.1, unpublished opinions have no precedential value, but may be
    cited as nonbinding authorities and accorded such persuasive value as the court deems
    appropriate.
    25
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Additional condition 4: Contact with minor children under 18 including biological
    children
    Alvarez argues additional condition 4 should contain an exception for his own
    biological children. Alvarez presently has no biological children. But because we are
    remanding to strike some conditions, it is proper to direct the trial court to amend this
    condition to permit an exception for Alvarez’s own children, should he later have any.
    Alvarez also argues the restriction to all minors over 16 and under 18 is not crime
    related because his crime was against a child under 16. We disagree.
    Prevention of harm to children is a compelling state interest. See, e.g., In re
    Dependency of C.B., 
    79 Wash. App. 686
    , 690, 
    904 P.2d 1171
    (1995). Restricting access to
    minors under 18 is reasonably related to the crime. Alvarez preyed on, and took
    advantage of, a minor under 18. The trial court concluded that minors under the age of 18
    should be protected from Alvarez, and the condition is reasonably related to Alvarez’s
    conviction.
    Additional condition 5: Polygraph testing
    Alvarez argues additional condition 5 should be struck or modified to limit
    polygraphs to compliance with his other community custody conditions. We agree.
    Polygraphs may be utilized to monitor compliance with community custody
    conditions. State v. Combs, 
    102 Wash. App. 949
    , 952, 
    10 P.3d 1101
    (2000). The testing
    26
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    should be limited, however, to monitor compliance with other community custody
    conditions, and not used “as a fishing expedition to discover evidence of other crimes,
    past or present.” 
    Id. at 953.
    Because the condition is not limited in this fashion, we
    remand for the court to add language limiting the scope of the polygraph testing.
    Additional condition 6: Search of electronic devices by DOC
    Alvarez argues additional condition 6 allows unfettered access to any electronic
    device Alvarez possesses and is in violation of Alvarez’s article I, section 7 right against
    searches and seizures. We agree and remand to strike this condition.
    To determine whether a preenforcement challenge to a community custody
    condition is ripe for review, the court examines “‘if the issues raised are primarily legal,
    do not require further factual development, and the challenged action is final.’” Sanchez
    
    Valencia, 169 Wash. 2d at 786
    (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 
    Bahl, 164 Wash. 2d at 751
    ). Then, the court also considers the hardship imposed on the petitioner if the
    challenged condition is not reviewed on appeal. 
    Id. Here, the
    community custody
    condition is a final action, Alvarez’s challenge raises a legal issue and no further factual
    development is required. See State v. Cates, 
    183 Wash. 2d 531
    , 
    354 P.3d 832
    (2015).
    In Cates, the defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree rape of a child
    and two counts of first degree child molestation. 
    Id. at 532.
    Among other community
    27
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    custody conditions, the court entered a provision that read: “‘You must consent to
    [Department of Corrections] home visits to monitor your compliance with supervision.
    Home visits include access for the purposes of visual inspection of all areas of the
    residence in which you live or have exclusive/joint control/access, to also include
    computers which you have access to.’” 7 
    Id. at 533
    (alteration in original). The defendant
    challenged this condition on appeal, arguing it violated the Washington Constitution
    because it authorized searches not based on probable cause. 
    Id. The Supreme
    Court
    upheld the condition, finding it was not ripe for review.
    The court recognized that, as written, the condition did not authorize any searches,
    and the inspections were limited to monitor the defendant’s compliance with supervision.
    
    Id. at 535.
    It further reasoned that “[s]ome future misapplication of the community
    custody condition might violate article I, section 7, but that ‘depends on the particular
    circumstances of the attempted enforcement.’” 
    Id. (quoting Sanchez
    Valencia, 169
    Wash. 2d at 789
    ). The court held that the State must attempt to enforce the provision before
    review would be appropriate. 
    Id. Alvarez’s condition
    is different from the condition in Cates. Here, the condition
    requires Alvarez to “[a]llow a full search of [his] cell phone/computer or other electronic
    7
    This condition is similar to Alvarez’s condition 8.
    28
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    device as directed by DOC staff.” CP at 174. Unlike Cates, this condition does in fact
    allow searches. This condition is not limited to monitor compliance with supervision; it is
    unlimited. Finally, the condition is not required to be based on probable cause—the DOC
    may search, and Alvarez must consent, at any time for any reason. Therefore, the
    condition violates article I, section 7 on its face and should be struck.8
    In sum, condition 5 must be struck because it is not crime related and, thus, the
    court exceeded its authority. Additional condition 6 must also be struck because it is in
    violation of the Washington Constitution, article I, section 7. Finally, additional
    condition 5 is remanded for the court to limit polygraph testing to monitor Alvarez’s
    compliance with other community custody conditions.
    CRIMINAL FILING FEE
    Alvarez asks this court to strike his $200 criminal filing fee pursuant to the holding
    in State v. Ramirez, 
    191 Wash. 2d 732
    , 
    426 P.3d 714
    (2018).
    House Bill 1783, which became effective June 7, 2018, prohibits trial courts from
    imposing discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) on defendants who are indigent
    at the time of sentencing. LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, § 6(3); 
    Ramirez, 191 Wash. 2d at 738
    ,
    8
    Alvarez also challenges this condition as not being crime related. We agree and
    would require the condition to be struck for this reason also. Alvarez’s crime did not
    involve any use of electronics, and the condition is not limited to ensure compliance with
    29
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    747. This change to the criminal filing fee statute is now codified in RCW
    36.18.020(2)(h). As held in Ramirez, these changes to the criminal filing fee statute apply
    prospectively to cases pending direct appeal prior to June 7, 2018. 
    Ramirez, 191 Wash. 2d at 747
    . Accordingly, the change in law applies to Alvarez’s case. Because Alvarez is
    indigent, the criminal filing fee must be struck pursuant to Ramirez.
    STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR REVIEW (SAG)
    Alvarez filed an original and a supplemental SAG, which contain at least 20
    arguments why his conviction should be reversed. We organize his arguments by subject
    matter and consolidate them for brevity.
    SAG Ground 1: JURY SELECTION
    1A. Jury selection: Jurors 8 and 14
    Alvarez contends that jurors 8 and 14 had the same name, which likely caused a
    conflict. Jurors 8 and 14 had different names.
    1B. Jury selection: Juror 10
    Alvarez contends that juror 10 was improperly left on the panel. He argues that
    juror 10 had an appointment on the afternoon of deliberations that likely caused the jury
    to rush deliberations. This is a bare assertion. Juror 10 had an appointment—but juror 10
    his other conditions.
    30
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    stated it could be changed. There is no evidence that juror 10 did not change the
    appointment and rushed deliberations.
    1C. Jury selection: Jurors 25 and 26
    Alvarez contends jurors 25 and 26 participated in voir dire after they were struck.
    Also, juror 25 learned J.P.’s age during voir dire. He asserts that this tainted the jury.
    There is no record of juror 25 participating in voir dire after being struck.
    Although juror 25 learned the age of J.P. during individual voir dire, juror 25 was struck
    for cause. Thus, that knowledge had no impact on the case.
    Juror 26 was struck for cause during individual voir dire. For some reason, juror
    26 returned for general voir dire. Juror 26 answered a question about prior jury service
    and how prior service on a hung jury was frustrating. Counsel recognized the mistake
    and excused juror 26. We reject Alvarez’s contentions that one comment about being on
    a hung jury tainted the rest of the jury pool.
    1D. Jury selection: Not screened for conflicts with Ashley Lucas or Jeffrey
    Porteous
    Alvarez contends the potential jurors were not screened for conflicts with two
    witnesses. He asserts this could have created a conflict in the jury and denied him a fair
    trial by an impartial jury. Alvarez has not included admissible facts to show that this
    failure to screen actually resulted in conflicts. Because his argument relies on facts
    31
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    outside the record, the appropriate course of relief is through a personal restraint petition.
    State v. McFarland, 
    127 Wash. 2d 322
    , 335, 
    899 P.2d 1251
    (1995).
    SAG Ground 2: JURY INSTRUCTIONS
    2A. Jury instructions: Instruction 6
    Alvarez contends the court erred and read jury instruction 6 that was previously
    removed. Instruction 6 was the definition of “sexual contact” under RCW 9A.44.010(2).
    The parties had previously agreed to remove the instruction before the court read the
    instructions to the jury, but the instruction accidentally remained in the jury packet. The
    court read it to the jury. At a sidebar, the parties agreed it should have been removed and
    agreed for the court to re-read the instruction to the jury to notify them which instruction
    would be removed. The second time through the instruction, the court said “sexual act”
    instead of “sexual contact.” Alvarez claims this misstep requires reversal. The court, per
    agreement of the parties, removed instruction 6. The court’s mistake in reading it to the
    jury, then re-reading and saying “sexual act” instead of “sexual contact” was harmless.
    The instruction was removed.
    32
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    2B. Jury instructions: Erroneous Petrich9 instruction
    Alvarez contends jury instruction 10 did not contain the required elements. Jury
    instruction 10 was not the element instruction. The elements were included in instruction
    8.
    SAG Ground 3: DETECTIVE ROMERO’S TESTIMONY
    3A. Detective Romero’s testimony: Statements about flight risk
    Alvarez contends Detective Romero’s statements about arresting Alvarez because
    he was unemployed and a flight risk were prejudicial and robbed Alvarez of a fair trial.
    Alvarez’s counsel objected at trial, and the court sustained the objection and instructed
    the jury to disregard the testimony. The law presumes this remedy was effective. State v.
    Swan, 
    114 Wash. 2d 613
    , 661-64, 
    790 P.2d 610
    (1990).
    Essentially, Alvarez argues the trial court should have declared a mistrial sua
    sponte. An appellant who does not request a remedy forfeits that claim. “‘Counsel may
    not remain silent, speculating upon a favorable verdict, and then, when it is adverse, use
    the claimed misconduct as a life preserver on a motion for a new trial or on appeal.’”
    9
    State v. Petrich, 
    101 Wash. 2d 566
    , 572, 
    683 P.2d 173
    (1984), overruled in part on
    other grounds by State v. Kitchen, 
    110 Wash. 2d 403
    , 406 n.1, 
    756 P.2d 105
    (1988),
    abrogated in part on other grounds by In re Pers. Restraint of Stockwell, 
    179 Wash. 2d 588
    ,
    
    316 P.3d 1007
    (2014).
    33
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    State v. Russell, 
    125 Wash. 2d 24
    , 93, 
    882 P.2d 747
    (1994) (quoting Jones v. Hogan, 
    56 Wash. 2d 23
    , 27, 
    351 P.2d 153
    (1960)).
    3B. Detective Romero’s testimony: Scope of testimony
    Alvarez argues the State was able to question Detective Romero outside the scope
    of his impeachment testimony of Alvarez’s two witnesses. We review the trial court’s
    decision to admit testimony for an abuse of discretion. State v. Demery, 
    144 Wash. 2d 753
    ,
    758, 
    30 P.3d 1278
    (2001). The State’s redirect of Detective Romero was proper
    responsive testimony to Alvarez’s witnesses who testified to impeach the credibility of
    J.P. Detective Romero’s testimony was limited to rehabilitating the witness, and the trial
    court did not abuse its discretion by allowing it.
    SAG Ground 4: CHARGING DOCUMENT
    Alvarez argues the charging document did not contain the essential elements
    needed for a conviction—they were constitutionally deficient. The charging document
    merely stated “sexual intercourse,” which can be found and accomplished in many
    different ways. Alvarez argues this ambiguity did not put him on notice of the “means”
    by which sexual intercourse was accomplished thus making the charging document
    deficient.
    34
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    A defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the charging document for the first
    time on appeal, but the court liberally construes the document in favor of validity.
    State v. Kjorsvik, 
    117 Wash. 2d 93
    , 105-06, 
    812 P.2d 86
    (1991). The court will look at
    (1) whether the necessary facts appear in any form or can be found by fair construction,
    and if so (2) whether the defendant suffered actual prejudice as a result of the vague or
    ambiguous language. 
    Id. The basis
    of Alvarez’s contention is that the information did not define “sexual
    intercourse.” The definition of sexual intercourse is not a statutory element and not
    necessary to include in the charging document. Therefore, the charging document was
    sufficient. Similar language has been upheld. See State v. Botello-Garcia, No. 46355-5-
    II, slip op. at 5-6 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2016) (unpublished),
    http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/46355-5.16.pdf;10 CP at 161. We conclude that
    the charging document alleged and defined the offense with sufficient certainty to give
    Alvarez notice of the crime.
    10
    Under GR 14.1, unpublished opinions have no precedential value, but may be
    cited as nonbinding authorities and accorded such persuasive value as the court deems
    appropriate.
    35
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    SAG Ground 5: MOTION IN LIMINE
    Alvarez argues the court erred by granting a motion in limine to exclude character
    evidence of J.P. J.P.’s actions of sneaking a dress into school, changing into it, taking
    pictures in it, then changing back out of it, should have been admitted to show J.P.’s
    untruthfulness and deceitfulness. Alvarez also argues the trial court erroneously excluded
    character evidence about J.P.’s prior discipline problems at school and home.
    The trial court reserved ruling on the motion in limine about J.P.’s actions with the
    dress, but otherwise excluded other character evidence. A trial court’s ruling on a motion
    in limine is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Powell, 
    126 Wash. 2d 244
    , 258,
    
    893 P.2d 615
    (1995); State v. Munguia, 
    107 Wash. App. 328
    , 335, 
    26 P.3d 1017
    (2001).
    Generally, character evidence is not admissible “for the purpose of proving action in
    conformity therewith on a particular occasion.” ER 404(a). Other wrongs or acts are also
    inadmissible for that purpose. ER 404(b). Alvarez does not argue that an exception
    applies to J.P.’s discipline history; therefore, we reject his contention. The trial court did
    not abuse its discretion in excluding that evidence.
    The court revisited the reserved motion in limine during trial. Alvarez’s counsel
    was able to question J.P. about the dress she showed Alvarez after the rape. Counsel
    36
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    conceded not to elicit other testimony about prior incidents with the dress. Because the
    court did not rule on this, the court could not have abused its discretion.
    SAG Ground 6: MR. PORTEOUS’S TESTIMONY
    Alvarez argues the trial court erred by allowing the State to examine Mr. Porteous
    outside the scope of redirect during recross. Whether a line of questioning on cross-
    examination is properly within the scope of direct examination is within the trial court’s
    discretion. State v. McDaniel, 
    83 Wash. App. 179
    , 184, 
    920 P.2d 1218
    (1996). The trial
    court properly exercised its discretion to allow the State to examine Mr. Porteous on
    recross.
    Initially, Alvarez called Mr. Porteous as a witness and questioned him about the
    interview with J.P. Mr. Porteous testified to statements J.P. did not make in her interview
    that seemed to contradict her trial testimony. The State cross-examined Mr. Porteous
    about that interview. Specifically, the State elicited testimony that Mr. Porteous was not
    asking the questions to J.P., and Alvarez’s counsel may have done a poor job posing the
    right questions to J.P. On redirect, Alvarez asked more questions about the interview to
    explain some of Mr. Porteous’s responses to the State’s cross-examination. The State
    recrossed and asked for a description of the room where the interview took place.
    Alvarez objected, arguing the question was outside the scope of redirect. The trial court
    37
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    overruled, and the State was able to briefly question Mr. Porteous about the interview
    room, the hallway to the room, and who was in the room during the interview. This
    recross was within the scope of redirect. Alvarez questioned Mr. Porteous about the
    interview, and the State’s questions were directly related to the interview.
    SAG Ground 7: DNA EVIDENCE
    Alvarez argues the DNA evidence was unreliable and insufficient because it did
    not come from an untainted source. He argues the underwear was gathered by J.P.’s
    mother and was initially located in a hamper with other clothes, including a towel that
    could have contained his DNA.
    At trial, Alvarez did not seek to exclude the evidence as unreliable. We conclude
    he has waived his right to review on this issue. State v. Guloy, 
    104 Wash. 2d 412
    , 422, 
    705 P.2d 1182
    (1985); see also State v. Blake, 
    172 Wash. App. 515
    , 530, 
    298 P.3d 769
    (2012).
    Because Alvarez also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, he admits the
    truth of all the State’s evidence. State v. Cardenas-Flores, 
    189 Wash. 2d 243
    , 265, 
    401 P.3d 19
    (2017). “Evidence is sufficient to support a guilty verdict if any rational trier of fact,
    viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find the elements of
    the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 
    Id. “[A]ll reasonable
    inferences from the
    38
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted most strongly against”
    Alvarez. State v. Salinas, 
    119 Wash. 2d 192
    , 201, 
    829 P.2d 1068
    (1992).
    To find Alvarez guilty of rape of a child in the second degree, the jury had to find
    that Alvarez had “sexual intercourse with another who is at least twelve years old but less
    than fourteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least
    thirty-six months older than the victim.” RCW 9A.44.076(1). “Sexual intercourse”
    means “any act of sexual contact between persons involving the sex organs of one person
    and the mouth or anus of another.” RCW 9A.44.010(1)(c). “‘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).
    Here, viewing all of the State’s evidence as true, there was sufficient evidence to
    convict Alvarez of rape of a child in the second degree. J.P. was 13 at the time of the
    rape. Alvarez was 26. J.P. was not married to Alvarez. J.P. testified that while upstairs,
    Alvarez put one to three fingers inside of her vagina. Then, Alvarez used his tongue on
    J.P.’s vagina. While this occurred, Alvarez was “pulling on himself.” 3 RP at 452. It is
    clear the elements were met, and a rational jury could have found Alvarez guilty.
    The State’s forensic expert testified she found saliva and male DNA on the inside
    crotch of the underwear worn by J.P. during the purported offenses. J.P. testified that
    39
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Alvarez performed oral sex on her. Alvarez offered no credible alternative explanation
    for the presence of saliva and male DNA on the inside crotch of J.P.’s underwear. There
    was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.
    SAG Ground 8: J.P.’S TESTIMONY
    Alvarez argues J.P.’s testimony was insufficient for conviction. J.P.’s story and
    allegations changed multiple times. He argues the court erred by allowing this testimony.
    He further argues, even after the court learned J.P. recanted, it still sentenced him despite
    the perjured testimony.
    As stated earlier, to find Alvarez guilty of rape of a child in the second degree, the
    jury had to find that Alvarez had “sexual intercourse with another who is at least twelve
    years old but less than fourteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the
    perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim.” RCW 9A.44.076(1).
    Here, there was sufficient evidence to convict Alvarez of rape of a child in the
    second degree. J.P. was 13 at the time of the rape. Alvarez was 26. J.P. was not married
    to Alvarez. J.P. testified that while upstairs, Alvarez put one to three fingers inside her
    vagina. Then, Alvarez used his tongue on J.P.’s vagina. While this occurred, Alvarez
    was “pulling on himself.” 3 RP at 452. It is clear the elements were met, and a rational
    jury could have found Alvarez guilty.
    40
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Alvarez did not object to the admission of J.P.’s testimony. Therefore, he waived
    his right to review on this issue. 
    Guloy, 104 Wash. 2d at 422
    ; see also 
    Blake, 172 Wash. App. at 530
    .
    Alvarez argues that because he is seeking a recantation, and J.P.’s mother met with
    Alvarez’s counsel after trial, this means J.P. recanted her allegations. There is no
    evidence of an actual recantation beyond Alvarez’s accusations. When claims depend on
    evidence outside the record, those claims are properly raised through a personal restraint
    petition. 
    McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d at 335
    .
    SAG Ground 9: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
    Each defendant has the right to receive effective assistance of counsel. Strickland
    v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 686, 
    104 S. Ct. 2052
    , 
    80 L. Ed. 2d 674
    (1984). Effective
    assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. 
    Id. at 698.
    We apply a two-pronged test to determine whether counsel provided effective
    assistance: (1) whether counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) whether that
    deficient performance prejudiced the defendant to an extent that changed the result of the
    trial. 
    Id. at 687.
    We can address the second prong initially “[i]f it is easier to dispose of
    an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice.” 
    Id. at 697.
    41
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    9A. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Not filing motions
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    did not file a motion to suppress the DNA evidence, a motion to exclude J.P.’s testimony,
    a motion to dismiss due to insufficient evidence, a motion to dismiss for an insufficient
    charging document, and a motion for retrial after J.P.’s recantation. To show prejudice
    for counsel’s failure to make a motion, a defendant must show the motion likely would
    have been granted. In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 
    152 Wash. 2d 647
    , 711, 
    101 P.3d 1
    (2004).
    Alvarez’s motion to exclude J.P.’s testimony or the DNA evidence would likely
    not have been granted. Alvarez merely asserts J.P.’s testimony is inconsistent and
    unreliable. However, evidence is relevant and, therefore, admissible when it has any
    tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of
    the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. ER 401,
    402. This threshold is very low. State v. Briejer, 
    172 Wash. App. 209
    , 225-26, 
    289 P.3d 698
    (2012). Alvarez’s arguments go more to the weight of this evidence, which is
    properly explored on cross-examination and determined by the jury.
    Alvarez’s motion to dismiss due to insufficient evidence would likely not have
    been granted. There was evidence presented that Alvarez touched J.P.’s sexual parts for
    42
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    the purpose of gratifying sexual desire and that J.P. was between 12 and 14 years old, not
    married to Alvarez, and Alvarez was more than 36 months older than J.P. See
    RCW 9A.44.076(1).
    Alvarez’s motion to dismiss due to an insufficient charging document would likely
    not have been granted. As stated earlier, the charging document contained the necessary
    elements.
    Alvarez does not show his motion for retrial would have been granted. There is no
    evidence of an actual recantation beyond Alvarez’s accusations.
    Because Alvarez cannot show any of his proposed motions would likely have been
    granted, his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel fail. See 
    Davis, 152 Wash. 2d at 711
    .
    9B. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Not objecting to amended information
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    did not object to the State’s amended information. The mere filing of additional charges
    after a defendant refuses a guilty plea is not sufficient for a finding of prosecutorial
    vindictiveness. State v. Korum, 
    157 Wash. 2d 614
    , 629, 
    141 P.3d 13
    (2006).
    9C. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Not objecting to community custody
    conditions
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    did not object to community custody conditions. Alvarez does not show how this alleged
    43
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    error would have changed the result of the trial. 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
    . Moreover,
    his community custody conditions have been addressed on appeal.
    9D. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Not presenting evidence
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    failed to present the audio recording and video recording of J.P.’s interviews. Alvarez
    contends the video and recordings would have shown J.P.’s inconsistent statements.
    Alvarez’s counsel accomplished this by examining Mr. Porteous, Detective Romero, and
    J.P. at length about the interviews. Playing the lengthy interview video and recording
    would have been time consuming, and it was a legitimate strategic tactic not to present
    those to the jury.
    9E. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Not objecting to the exclusion of J.P.’s
    character evidence
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    failed to object to the court excluding evidence of J.P.’s character of past school and
    familial discipline. Even if Alvarez’s counsel objected to the court excluding certain
    evidence about J.P.’s character, the objection would likely have been overruled. Alvarez
    asserts the information should have been admitted to show J.P.’s deceitfulness,
    flirtatiousness, and that she lied about the rape. Generally, character evidence is not
    admissible “for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular
    44
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    occasion.” ER 404(a). Other wrongs or acts are also inadmissible for that purpose.
    ER 404(b). Therefore, his argument fails.
    9F. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Jury
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    did not screen potential jurors for a conflict with Ms. Lucas or Mr. Porteous, he failed to
    remove juror 11 instead of juror 10, and he failed to remove juror 13. Alvarez does not
    show how these alleged errors would have changed the result of the trial. 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
    . Alvarez does not show the jury panel had an actual conflict with Ms. Lucas
    or Mr. Porteous.
    As noted before, Alvarez asserts that because juror 10 had an appointment on the
    afternoon of deliberations, it likely caused the jury to rush deliberations. This is a bare
    assertion. Juror 10 had an appointment—but juror 10 stated it could be changed. There is
    no evidence that juror 10 did not change the appointment and rushed deliberations. Juror
    11 had an actual conflict to leave town during deliberations. It was a legitimate strategy
    to remove juror 11 instead of 10.
    Alvarez does not show how not removing juror 13 would have changed the result
    of the trial just because juror 13 learned J.P.’s age during voir dire. 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
    . J.P.’s age was uncontested at trial.
    45
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    9G. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Trial objections
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    failed to object to J.P. being referred to as “victim,” Officer Nelson’s hearsay testimony,
    and Officer Nelson’s Miranda11 testimony.
    Alvarez generally alleges that his counsel and multiple witnesses referred to J.P. as
    “victim.” This does not show how an objection and sustained ruling on that
    characterization of J.P. would have changed his conviction. 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
    .
    Officer Nelson’s testimony about what Mr. Alvarez instructed him to tell Alvarez
    may have been hearsay, but Alvarez fails to show how the outcome of the trial would
    have been different if Officer Nelson’s testimony was objected to and sustained.
    
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
    .
    Alvarez does not show how an objection and sustained ruling on Officer Nelson’s
    Miranda testimony would have changed his conviction. 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
    .
    9H. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Right to testify
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    intimidated him and advised him not to testify. There is no evidence that Alvarez’s
    counsel intimidated him not to testify. Alvarez went on record to confirm he did not want
    11
    Miranda v. Arizona, 
    384 U.S. 436
    , 
    86 S. Ct. 1602
    , 
    16 L. Ed. 2d 694
    (1966).
    46
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    to testify. If Alvarez’s claim depends on evidence outside the record, that claim is
    properly raised through a personal restraint petition. 
    McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d at 335
    .
    9I. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Jury instructions
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    failed to object or correct jury instructions 10 and 13.
    Alvarez argues the court erred by striking a certain part of jury instruction 13.
    However, Alvarez goes on to say this prevented the jury from considering the State’s
    questions to Mr. Porteous as part of the record. Striking the State’s leading questions
    from the record was a legitimate trial tactic.
    As noted earlier, jury instruction 10 was not the required element instruction. The
    elements were included in instruction 8.
    9J. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Witness list
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    failed to file a witness list. Alvarez does not show how this would have changed his
    conviction. 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
    .
    9K. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Mental health capacity
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    did not object to his mental health capacity. Alvarez does not explain why counsel should
    47
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    have objected to Alvarez being found competent. Because we are unable to determine the
    nature of the claimed error, we will not review it. If Alvarez’s claim depends on evidence
    outside the record, that claim is properly raised through a personal restraint petition.
    
    McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d at 335
    .
    9L. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Sentencing
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    failed to object to the State’s comment at sentencing, failed to correct the State’s
    characterization of the crime, failed to object or correct the State’s sentencing
    memorandum, and failed to argue for an exceptional mitigated sentence.
    Counsel’s failure to object to the State’s comment at sentencing that “[Alvarez]
    continue[s] to molest” is harmless. RP (Aug. 25, 2017) at 9. Likewise, counsel’s failure
    to object to the State’s comment that Alvarez’s history of sexual abuse occurs usually
    while watching movies with the victim was harmless. Finally, the State characterized
    Alvarez’s crime as taking place over a couple hours in multiple rooms. Alvarez argues
    this is incorrect as he was only convicted of conduct that took place in the upstairs
    bedroom, and J.P.’s testimony was that it lasted an hour and one-half, not a couple hours.
    Alvarez cannot show with likelihood that any of these comments changed the sentence he
    received.
    48
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue for an exceptional mitigated
    sentence. Alvarez’s counsel argued for the low end of the sentencing range. The court
    was very mindful of the victim in this case and how this rape will affect her for the rest of
    her life. The court reasoned that the low end of the range was inappropriate considering
    the crime and the victim. On the other hand, the court believed the high end of the range
    was also not necessary. Therefore, the court imposed 110 months. Alvarez cannot show
    with substantial likelihood that if his counsel would have argued for an exceptional
    mitigated sentence that he would have received it—considering his counsel argued for the
    low end range and Alvarez did not receive a low end range sentence.
    9M. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Limiting instructions
    Alvarez argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney
    failed to propose a limiting instruction for officers’ reports, Detective Romero’s
    testimony and J.P.’s testimony.
    The “officers’ reports” were not admitted into evidence. There were only six
    exhibits admitted into evidence—J.P.’s underwear and five photographs of the house,
    stairway, loft, and J.P.’s bedroom. Therefore, Alvarez’s counsel could not limit their
    admissibility because they were not admitted to the jury. His argument that the officers’
    49
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    reference to their reports was improper also fails. An officer may reference their report to
    refresh their recollection. ER 612.
    Detective Romero’s testimony was not limited to impeachment testimony.
    Detective Romero was called as a witness in the State’s case-in-chief. He gave more than
    impeachment testimony. A limiting instruction was unsuitable with his testimony.
    J.P.’s testimony was also not limited to impeachment testimony. She testified to
    the details of the rape. A limiting instruction was simply inconsistent with the testimony
    she gave.
    SAG Ground 10: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
    To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, Alvarez must establish “‘that
    the prosecutor’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial in the context of the entire
    record and the circumstances at trial.’” State v. Thorgerson, 
    172 Wash. 2d 438
    , 442, 
    258 P.3d 43
    (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Magers, 
    164 Wash. 2d 174
    , 191, 
    189 P.3d 126
    (2008)). Prejudice requires a showing of substantial likelihood
    that the prosecutor’s misconduct affected the jury’s verdict. 
    Id. at 443.
    A failure to
    object to an improper remark waives review of the error unless it “‘is so flagrant and ill
    intentioned that it causes an enduring and resulting prejudice that could not have been
    neutralized by an admonition to the jury.’” 
    Id. (quoting Russell,
    125 Wn.2d at 86).
    50
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    10A. Prosecutorial misconduct: Insufficient evidence
    Alvarez contends the State charged without sufficient evidence and should have
    waited until the DNA results were done. “Prosecutors are given broad discretion in
    determining what charges to bring and when to file them.” City of Kennewick v.
    Fountain, 
    116 Wash. 2d 189
    , 194, 
    802 P.2d 1371
    (1991). Alvarez has not shown any abuse
    of that discretion.
    10 B. Prosecutorial misconduct: Amended information was vindictive and against
    double jeopardy
    Alvarez contends the State’s amended information was prosecutorial misconduct
    because it was vindictive and it violated double jeopardy principles. In his amended
    SAG,12 Alvarez also argues the State’s actions to stack an additional count after he
    refused a plea deal is inconsistent with the legislature’s directives in RCW 9.94A.411.
    Prosecutorial vindictiveness is the filing of additional or more serious charges in
    response to a defendant’s exercise of a constitutional or procedural right. 
    Korum, 157 Wash. 2d at 627
    . An action is only vindictive if it is designed to punish or penalize the
    defendant. 
    Id. The Sentencing
    Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW, provides
    guidelines to prosecutors—they do not constitute an enforceable right. See
    12
    This amended SAG was filed on May 28, 2019, and Alvarez only asserted a new
    argument under this issue.
    51
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    RCW 9.94A.401. A prosecutor should not overcharge a defendant in order to obtain a
    guilty plea, RCW 9.94A.411(2)(a)(i), (ii), but on the other hand, a prosecutor may charge
    other offenses if it significantly enhances its case. RCW 9.94A.411(2)(a)(i)(A).
    Alvarez argues that the State was vindictive when it filed an additional count after
    he refused a plea deal. “[T]he mere filing of additional charges and the consequent
    increase in sentence . . . cannot support a presumption of vindictiveness . . . .” 
    Korum, 157 Wash. 2d at 634
    . Alvarez has not alleged facts beyond the mere filing of an additional
    count; therefore, his vindictiveness claim fails. This holding is consistent with precedent.
    See Korum, 
    157 Wash. 2d 614
    (finding no vindictiveness where State filed 16 additional
    felony charges after defendant withdrew guilty plea); United States v. Goodwin, 
    457 U.S. 368
    , 
    102 S. Ct. 2485
    , 
    73 L. Ed. 2d 74
    (1982) (finding no prosecutorial vindictiveness
    where the United States Attorney obtained a felony indictment and conviction after
    defendant refused misdemeanor plea deal); Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 
    434 U.S. 357
    , 98 S.
    Ct. 663, 
    54 L. Ed. 2d 604
    (1978) (finding no prosecutorial vindictiveness where
    prosecutor sought a habitual criminal indictment and defendant received life in prison
    after defendant rejected five-year sentence in exchange for his guilty plea). Here, the
    prosecutor was free to file an additional count after Alvarez rejected the plea deal. The
    initial charge did not set a ceiling on Alvarez’s potential criminal liability.
    52
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Double jeopardy means a defendant cannot be prosecuted for the same offense
    after being acquitted, be prosecuted for the same offense after being convicted, or receive
    multiple punishments for the same offense. State v. Villanueva-Gonzalez, 
    180 Wash. 2d 975
    , 980, 
    329 P.3d 78
    (2014). Alvarez did not “receive multiple punishments for the
    same offense.” He was only convicted of one count.
    10C. Prosecutorial misconduct: J.P.’s false testimony
    Alvarez contends the State coached J.P. into giving false testimony. There is no
    evidence of this in the record. If this claim depends on evidence outside the record, that
    claim is properly raised through a personal restraint petition. 
    McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d at 335
    .
    10D. Prosecutorial misconduct: Alvarez’s right not to testify
    Alvarez contends the State improperly commented on his failure to testify. We
    find this comment was not improper. This comment was during jury voir dire, and the
    prosecutor asked a potential juror if the juror would hold it against a defendant if the
    defendant did not testify. The prosecutor also added it was a defendant’s right not to
    testify. This is a proper question to uncover possible jury bias.
    53
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    10E. Prosecutorial misconduct: Speedy trial
    Alvarez contends the State used his right to a speedy trial against him by making
    comments about DNA evidence and testing during voir dire. However, most of the
    statements occurred at a sidebar with Alvarez’s counsel and the court. The only questions
    posed by the State to the jury pool were whether the jury needed DNA evidence to
    convict, whether the jury would hold it against the State if DNA evidence was not tested,
    and whether the jury believed forensic testing occurs at the same speed in real life as it
    does on television. Alvarez objected to these questions, and the court instructed the State
    to go to a different line of questioning. Alvarez does not show prosecutorial misconduct,
    if any, about his right to a speedy trial. These were not flagrant or ill-intentioned
    statements.
    10F. Prosecutorial misconduct: Sentencing
    Alvarez contends the State proceeded with sentencing after knowledge of J.P.’s
    recantation. There is no evidence of an actual recantation beyond Alvarez’s accusations.
    When claims depend on evidence outside the record, those claims are properly raised
    through a personal restraint petition. 
    McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d at 335
    .
    54
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    SAG Ground 11: OFFENDER SCORE
    Alvarez argues his offender score was miscalculated because it included a prior
    juvenile conviction. Alvarez has a conviction for child molestation in the first degree in
    2005. Child molestation in the first degree is a class A felony. RCW 9A.44.083. Under
    RCW 9.94A.525(2)(a), prior class A and felony sex convictions are always included in
    the offender score. Consistent with RCW 9.94A.525(17), because Alvarez’s current
    conviction was for a sex offense, any prior adult or juvenile sex convictions counted as
    three points toward his offender score. Therefore, his offender score was correct.
    SAG Ground 12: CUMULATIVE ERROR
    Alvarez argues the aforementioned errors, cumulatively, deprived him of a fair
    trial and warrant reversal. Under RAP 10.10, the court will only review issues raised in
    an SAG that are not duplicative of the briefing. Alvarez’s counsel already raised
    cumulative error in briefing. Because there are no errors with any of the additional issues
    raised in Alvarez’s SAG, his argument fails.
    55
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Affirmed, but remand to strike some community custody conditions and the
    criminal filing fee.
    A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
    Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
    RCW 2.06.040.
    L,.,,_. .   '\..r, <.. l. -   \ ) 'vv-\-J   I (, • ~.
    Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.                   r
    56
    No. 35567-5-III
    SIDDOWAY, J. (concurring)-! part ways with the lead opinion on the harmless
    error analysis. I believe that Officer Michael Nelson's testimony that Alvarez showed no
    surprise upon being told of J.P. 's allegation would have been significant to jurors. And
    the DNA 1 evidence was subject to credible challenge, given the concession of the State's
    expert that she could not eliminate the possibility that what tested positive as saliva could
    have been another bodily fluid, she could not say that it was from a male, she found both
    female and male DNA, and that if not carefully handled and stored, evidence can easily
    be contaminated with third party DNA. When asked during her testimony to remove the
    underwear from its evidence bag to show the jury where she had taken a sample, she
    explained that she would try not to speak over it "because I don't want to contaminate it
    with my own saliva or any other DNA," and "people spit when they talk." 3 Report of
    Proceedings at 522, 527. If it was error to admit Officer Nelson's testimony about
    Alvarez's reaction, it was not harmless.
    As for Mari Murstig's testimony about the consistency of J.P.'s statements, I agree
    that the error in admitting it was harmless-not because the DNA evidence could not
    credibly be challenged, but because jurors were likely to rely on their own assessment of
    the consistency of J.P.'s statements rather than on Ms. Murstig's assessment.
    Z)dAtV%)~
    Siddoway, J.
    1
    Deoxyribonucleic acid.
    No. 35567-5-111
    FEARING J.   (concurring) - I concur in the court's affirmation of the conviction of
    Jeremy Alvarez for one count of second degree rape of a child. I agree with all of the
    lead opinion's rulings except the ruling that would hold harmless the introduction of
    evidence of Jeremy Alvarez's expression when confronted by a law enforcement officer,
    assuming the evidence to be inadmissible.
    Sound reason exists to apply the state and federal constitutions' privilege against
    self-incrimination to an accused's silence in response to a law enforcement officer's
    accusation of a crime before an arrest of the accused. An accused holds no obligation to
    respond to questions asked by a law enforcement officer. The law enforcement officer
    could delay an arrest in order to question the accused in order to employ for a conviction
    any silence in face of an accusation. Allowing the introduction of evidence of such
    silence conflicts with the principle that the State may not comment on the accused's
    silence or failure to testify at trial. Griffin v. California, 
    380 U.S. 609
    , 610 n.2, 6~3, 85 S.
    Ct. 1229, 
    14 L. Ed. 2d 106
    (1965). Still, because of Washington Supreme Court and
    United States Supreme Court precedent, a higher court would need to modify the law in
    No. 35567-5-111
    State v. Alvarez
    order to apply the constitutional right against self-incrimination to prearrest silence.
    Salinas v. Texas, 
    570 U.S. 178
    , 
    133 S. Ct. 2174
    , 
    186 L. Ed. 2d 376
    (2013) (plurality
    opinion); State v. Earls, 
    116 Wash. 2d 364
    , 375, 
    805 P.2d 211
    (1991); State v. Moore, 
    79 Wash. 2d 51
    , 57,
    483 P.2d 630
    (1971).
    The State sought to introduce evidence of Jeremy Alvarez's reaction, when faced
    with an accusation, to show consciousness of guilt. Aside from the constitutional
    question, I question the relevance of silence as tending to prove guilt and further question
    the probative value of evidence of silence when compared to its prejudicial impact. This
    questioning increases under circumstances when the State does not introduce evidence of
    the accused's failure to verbally respond to an accusation, but introduces testimony of
    facial expressions. One's facial expressions remain subject to subjective interpretations
    of the viewer. No matter the response of an accused to an accusation, law enforcement
    may interpret the response as evidence of guilt. If the accused, instead of remaining
    silent or staring blankly, denies the accusation with a look of surprise, law enforcement
    may interpret the response as protesting too much.
    In United States v. Hale, 
    422 U.S. 171
    , 
    95 S. Ct. 2133
    , 
    45 L. Ed. 2d 99
    (1975), the
    nation's high Court held that ~n accused's silence during a police interrogation lacked a
    significant probative value so that any questioning during trial in an attempt to impeach
    2
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    his alibi carried with it an intolerably prejudicial impact. The Supreme Court thereby
    affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of William Hale's conviction for robbery and
    grant of a new trial.
    In United States v. Hale, the United States Supreme Court addressed the situation
    of silence after an arrest and the delivery of Miranda warnings. Nevertheless, the
    reasoning applies to employment of silence or facial expressions as evidence under other
    circumstances. The Court observed that, in most circumstances, silence is so ambiguous
    that it is of little probative force. A variety of reasons may influence the accused's
    decision to remain mute. Under emotional and confusing circumstances, a suspect may
    not hear or fully understand the question or may have felt no need to reply. The accused
    may simply react with silence in response to the hostile and perhaps unfamiliar
    atmosphere when confronted by an accusatory law enforcement officer. Moreover,
    evidence of silence holds a significant potential for prejudice. The jury may assign much
    more weight to the accused's previous silence than warranted. Permitting the defendant
    to explain the reasons for his silence will unlikely overcome the strong negative inference
    that the jury draws from the fact that the suspect remained silent when accused.
    During trial, Jeremy Alvarez sought exclusion of the law enforcement's testimony
    to Alvarez's reaction following the accusation on relevance and undue prejudice grounds.
    3
    No. 35567-5-III
    State v. Alvarez
    Nevertheless, Alvarez does not assign error on appeal to the introduction of evidence of
    his facial expressions or silence on such grounds.
    I agree with my concurring sister that, if we held the silence or facial expressions
    of Jeremy Alvarez to be inadmissible evidence, the testimony would not be harmless.
    j;_
    Fearing, J . ~ '
    .~
    4