State Of Washington, V Todd D. Phelps ( 2014 )

F3LU3
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION Ii
2014 JUN 17 AM 8: 34 .
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 43557 -8 -II
Respondent,
v.
TODD DALE PHELPS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
LEE, J. — In 2012, a jury found Todd Dale Phelps guilty of third degree rape and second
degree sexual misconduct with a minor. Phelps appeals, arguing: ( 1) the trial court violated his
and the public' s right to an open and public trial during jury selection, ( 2) the trial court violated
his right to be present during jury selection, ( 3) the information charging Phelps with second
degree sexual misconduct with a minor was deficient, ( 4) the trial court failed to give a
unanimity instruction for the second degree sexual misconduct with a minor charge, ( 5) the
prosecutor committed misconduct during closing arguments, and ( 6) Phelps' s trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. We
affirm.
No. 43557 -8 -II
FACTS
A. Background
AA1
In the summer of 2010, 16- year -
old played fastpitch softball on a travelling team
with Todd Phelps' s 18- year -old daughter. Phelps served as an assistant coach on the team.
Because AA' s family could not travel to her tournaments that summer, she generally travelled
with the Phelpses and came to think of them as. a " second family. 3 Report of Proceedings ( RP)
at 444. AA often stayed the night at the Phelps' s home and viewed Phelps as a role model and
father figure.
AA began experiencing personal issues during the summer that continued into the fall of
her sophomore year. She cut herself, experienced depression, tried drugs, and contemplated
suicide.
In the spring. of 2011, AA began playing softball for the Pe Ell High School team. Phelps
was a paid employee of the school, working as an assistant softball coach. Having heard rumors
about AA' s drug usage, Phelps confronted her during softball practice in March 2011. AA told
Phelps about some of her personal issues, but later indicated through social media that she
wanted to talk with him more.
On March 26, Phelps drove AA to watch a softball game between two rival schools.
Before returning her home, Phelps stopped in a Pe Ell church parking lot to speak with AA.
During their conversation in the car, Phelps graphically recounted to AA a number of his sexual
experiences over the years. According to AA, Phelps related these stories so that she would have
dirt on him" and, in turn, she could trust him with her problems. 3 RP at 457. Phelps told AA
1 To provide some confidentiality in this case, we use initials in the body of the opinion to
identify the minor victim.
2
No. 43557 -8 -II'
that he was going to help her get through her problems but, in return, she would need to repay
him sexually once she turned 18. Phelps also told AA he would start texting her to make sure
she was not cutting herself. When Phelps finally dropped AA at home, he instructed her to tell
her parents that she was late getting home because they had stopped to eat.
Over the next few months, Phelps and AA texted each other thousands of times, often
using other people' s phones, and also communicated frequently through social media and e -mail.
AA' s parents and school officials became aware of Phelps' s frequent communications with AA,
and ultimately, Phelps was forced to resign his coaching position because of his involvement
with AA. Additionally, Phelps engaged in the following conduct with AA during this time:
On April 2, Phelps engaged in sexual contact with AA.
On April 6, Phelps kissed AA.
On April 9, 12 and April 21, Phelps inappropriately touched AA.
On July 27, Phelps engaged in sexual intercourse with AA.
In September, AA disclosed having sexual intercourse with Phelps to her family. AA' s father
reported the incident to police.
B. Procedure
On November 10, 2011, the State charged Phelps with third degree rape and second
degree sexual misconduct with a minor. The State later amended the information to include two
aggravating circumstances for the third degree rape charge: ( 1) that Phelps used his position of
trust to facilitate the rape and ( 2) that AA was a particularly vulnerable victim.
Jury selection for Phelps' s trial began on April 17, 2012. Prior to voir dire beginning, the
court informed the parties that it would conduct hardship questioning at the beginning of voir
3
No. 43557 -8 -II
dire, reserve its ruling until just before peremptory challenges, then " inform counsel as to who
will be excused." 1 RP ( Voir Dire) at 3.
During voir dire, juror no. 28 indicated that serving on the jury would be an
inconvenience because he had previously committed to chaperoning a
trip. Juror no. 48 told the
trial court that serving on the jury would create a hardship because he was the only income-
earner in his household and his employer would not pay for jury duty. Without having excused
either juror, the court then indicated that it would revisit hardship excusals later.
The trial court then questioned jurors about potential conflicts or. bias. 1 RP ( Voir Dire)
at 8 - 10. The court asked whether any of the potential jurors had " read or heard anything about
this matter," whether " what you heard or read [ has] caused you to form any opinions that would
affect your ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror," and whether anyone was " acquainted with
the parties, their attorneys, or the potential witnesses." 1 RP ( Voir Dire) at 9. Juror no. 62 raised
his hand in response to all three questions.
During the State' s voir dire, juror no. 62 stated:
I live in the town of Pe Ell. I know almost every person on [ the witness] list. I
know them from church. I know —my wife worked at the school, coached some
of these girls. And I run the day care which has some of the family members
there.
1 RP ( Voir Dire) at 20. The following exchange then occurred:
The Court]: ... [ C] ould I interrupt just for a moment?
The State]: Yes.
The Court] : Juror 62 was actually excused from this case earlier and I thought he
knew that. You' re Mr. Kephart; is that right?
Juror no. 62]: Yes, sir.
The Court]: Yes.
Juror no. 62]: I was. But you also told me I had to come and go through the
process, so I' m here.
4
No. 43557 -8 -II
The Court]: I think we had a miscommunication. But you told me all of those
things and I thought ... Well, at any rate, your [ sic] excused today-
1 RP ( Voir Dire) at 21 -22. Following a sidebar, voir dire continued with both parties eliciting
responses from the venire. The parties then had a sidebar discussion to pick the jury. Juror no.
28 and 48 were not selected for the jury.
Phelps' s jury trial began later that day. AA testified to the incidents described above and,
specifically, that she did not consent to the July 27, 2011 sexual intercourse with Phelps. On
cross- examination, Phelps' s attorney questioned AA about whether she told prosecutors that she
had consented to the intercourse:
Defense Attorney]: During one of your interviews or maybe more than one
interview with [ the prosecutor], did you tell her that you used the word rape later
but the sex was consensual or that you consented?
AA] : No, I don' t remember saying that.
Defense Attorney]: All right. And let me follow that up. When you tell us " I
don' t remember saying that," does that mean that you could have told [ the
prosecutor] that?
AA]: Because when it first happened I tried to make myself believe it was
consensual anyways because I didn' t want [ Phelps] — I didn' t want that to be who
he was because, in honesty, I really, really, really, really respected him. I
all
didn' t want this to happen. I didn' t want to have to do this. But no, I don' t
remember ever saying that. But because of the fact that I tried to make myself
believe that it was consensual, and there is a chance I probably could have said
that.
5 RP at 880.
After the State rested, Phelps had four witnesses testify on his behalf: his mother, his
wife, his daughter, and his sister - -
in law. Phelps' s mother testified that Phelps was with her at the
time of the charged sexual misconduct on April 2. Phelps did not testify.
During closing arguments, Phelps' s attorney argued that AA either consented to sexual
intercourse with Phelps or that the July 27 incident never occurred. In its closing rebuttal, the
No. 43557 -8 -II
State commented that, " I got to be quite honest with you today, I didn' t know the defense was
one of consent." 8 RP at 1580. Following this, the State argued without objection that, even if a
deputy prosecutor had written a note about consent during an interview with AA, the defense
attorney was not there at the time and " has no idea of [what the] context was of the interview.
He doesn' t even know what the notes were about, but we' re obligated to give them to him." 8
RP at 1582. The State then argued that looking at all the evidence — especially AA' s trial
testimony — was clear that AA did not consent to sexual intercourse.
it
The jury found Phelps guilty of second degree sexual misconduct with a minor and third
degree rape and also found, as aggravating factors to the rape conviction, that AA was
particularly vulnerable and that Phelps used his position of trust to facilitate the rape. Phelps
appeals.
ANALYSIS
A PUBLIC TRIAL RIGHT
Phelps first argues that the trial court violated his and the public' s right to a public trial
when it privately excused jurors during voir dire and held various in-camera proceedings
throughout trial. Because Phelps fails to meet his burden of establishing that public trial
violations occurred, we disagree.
1. Standard of Review
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the
Washington State Constitution guarantee a defendant the right to a public trial. State v. Wise,
176 Wash. 2d 1, 9, 288 P.3d 1113 ( 2012). This court reviews alleged violations of the public trial
right de novo. Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 9.
No. 43557 -8 -II
Generally, a trial court must conduct the five - art test set forth in State v. Bone -Club, 128
p
Wn.2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 ( 1995), to determine if a closed proceeding is warranted. 2 However,
not every interaction between the court, counsel, and defendants will implicate the right to a
public trial, or constitute a closure if closed to the public." State v. Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d 58, 71,
292 P.3d 715 ( 2012). Accordingly, the threshold determination when addressing an alleged
violation of the public trial right is whether the proceeding at issue even implicates the right.
Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d at 71.
In Sublett, the Washington Supreme Court adopted a two -
part " experience and logic" test
to address this issue: ( 1) whether the place and process historically have been open to the press
and general public ( experience prong), and ( 2) whether the public access plays a significant
2
The five criteria in Bone -Club are: •
1. The proponent of closure or sealing must make some showing [ of a compelling
interest], and where that need is based on a right other than an accused' s right to a
fair trial, the proponent must show a ` serious and imminent threat' to that right.
2. Anyone present when the closure motion is made must be given an opportunity
to object to the closure.
3. The proposed method for curtailing open access must be the least restrictive
means available for protecting the threatened interests.
4. The court must weigh the competing interests of the proponent of closure and
the public.
5. The order must be no broader in its application or duration than necessary to
serve its purpose.
Bone -Club, 128 Wash. 2d at 258 -59 ( in
quoting Allied Daily Newspapers of
alteration original) (
Washington v. Eikenberry, 121 Wash. 2d 205, 210 -11, 848 P.2d 1258 ( 1993)).
7
No. 43557 -8 -II
3
positive role in the functioning of a particular process in question ( logic prong). 176 Wash. 2d at
72 -73. Both questions must be answered affirmatively to implicate the public trial right. Sublett,
176 Wash. 2d at 73. If the public trial right is implicated, reviewing courts then look at whether a
closure actually occurred without the requisite Bone -Club analysis. State v. Paumier, 176 Wash. 2d
29, 35, 288 P.3d 1126 ( 2012). If a closure has occurred, "[ f]ailure to conduct the Bone -Club
analysis is structural error warranting a new trial." Paumier, 176 Wash. 2d at 35.
2. Jurors no. 28 and 48
Phelps contends that the " record does not reflect how or when [jurors no. 28 and 48] were
excused" and, accordingly, we should assume the trial court violated his right to an open and
public trial. Br. of Appellant at 13. We reject this argument because it misrepresents the record
in this case, and on appeal, Phelps carries the burden to demonstrate that a public trial violation
occurred.
We have previously addressed the burden of proof on appeal for a public trial violation
claim. In both State v. Halverson, 176 Wn. App. 972, 977, 309 P.3d 795 ( 2013), review denied,
179 Wash. 2d 1016 ( 2014), and State v. Miller, 179 Wn. App. 91, 316 P.3d 1143 ( 2014), we
stressed that the appellant bears the burden of establishing a public trial violation. In every
public trial right case cited by Phelps in his briefing, the record clearly established a courtroom
closure.
3
Although only four justices signed the lead opinion in Sublett, a majority adopted the
experience and logic" test with Justice Stephens' s . concurrence. 176 Wash. 2d at 136 ( Stephens,
J., concurring). More recently, our Supreme Court cited Sublett in unanimously applying the
experience and logic" test in In re Personal Restraint of Yates, 177 Wash. 2d 1, 28 -29, 296 P.3d
872:( 2013).
8
No. 43557 -8 -II
For example, in Bone -Club, the trial court expressly ordered a courtroom closure during a
4
pretrial suppression hearing. 128 Wash. 2d at 256.. Also, in State v. Brightman, In re Pers.
Restraint of Orange, 5 and State v. Njonge, 6 the trial court explicitly ordered closures or told the
public that they could not attend voir dire proceedings because of space and security concerns.
And in State v. Leyerle, 158 Wn. App. 474, 477, 242 P.3d 921 ( 2010), the record clearly
reflected ( and both parties agreed) that the trial court and both parties questioned a potential juror
in a hallway outside the courtroom. Finally, in Paumier, 176 Wash. 2d at 33, Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 7,
and State v. Strode, 167 Wash. 2d 222, 224, 217 P.3d 310 ( 2009), the trial court individually
questioned jurors in camera during voir dire. In all these cases, the appellate record clearly
established that the public was inappropriately excluded from some portion of a public trial.
Here, in contrast, nothing in the record establishes that a closure occurred during voir dire
or that jurors no. 28 and 48 were privately questioned or dismissed from the jury pool. Before
voir dire commenced, the trial court stated that " if there are people, as I assume there will be,
indicating that the length of the trial is a problem, I will do the questioning on that and then
reserve ruling until I see — until just before peremptory challenges and I' ll inform counsel as to
who will be excused and who will be retained." 1 RP at 3.
During voir dire, jurors no. 28 and 48 both indicated that the timing and length of the trial
would be a hardship. Just as the trial court indicated, it refrained from excusing these jurors at
4 155 Wash. 2d 506, 511, 122 P.3d 150 ( 2005).
5 152 Wash. 2d 795, 802, 100 P.3d 291 ( 2004).
6
161 Wn. App. 568, 571 -72, 255 P.3d 753 ( 2011), review granted, No. 86072 -6 ( Wash. Apr. 8,
2013)
9
No. 43557 -8 -II
this preliminary phase of voir dire. Instead, the record reflects that juror no. 28 was actively
involved during voir dire, and that juror no. 48 was at least mentioned at the end of voir dire.
At the close of voir dire, the parties had a sidebar discussion to exercise peremptory
challenges and pick the jury. Jurors no. 28 and 48 were not selected for the jury. The record
does not reflect that jurors no. 28 and 48 were excused outside of the courtroom or that any type
of courtroom closure occurred. Because the record does not establish that jurors no. 28 and 48
were excused during a closed proceeding, Phelps has failed to meet his burden of establishing a
public trial violation.
To the extent that Phelps argues that a public trial right violation occurred when the
parties selected the jury at sidebar, this argument has been rejected. In State v. Love, 176 Wn.
App. 911, 920, 309 P.3d 1209 ( 2013), Division Three of this court held that "[ n] either prong of
the experience and logic test suggests that the exercise of cause or peremptory challenges must
take place in public," and " the trial court did not erroneously close the courtroom by hearing the
defendant' s for cause challenges at sidebar." 176 Wash. App. at 920. In so holding, the Love court
reasoned that logic " does not indicate that [ cause or peremptory] challenges need to be
conducted in public," and that, with regard to Sublett' s experience prong, " over 140 years of
cause and peremptory challenges in this state" showed " little evidence of the public exercise of
such challenges, and some evidence that they are conducted privately." Love, 176 Wash. App. at
919. We adopt the reasoning of the Love court and hold that exercising for cause challenges at
sidebar during jury selection does not implicate the public trial right.
7
In State v. Dunn, Wn. App. , 321 P.3d 1283 ( 2014), we adopted the reasoning of the
Love court and held that exercising peremptory challenges at the clerk' s station does not
implicate the public trial right.
10
No. 43557 -8 -II
3. Juror no. 62
Phelps next argues that the colloquy between the trial court and juror no. 62 " suggests
that jurors were questioned and excused behind closed doors." Br. of Appellant at 13. Phelps
further argues that although juror no.. 62 was excused for cause on the record in open court, we
should assume a public trial violation occurred before or during voir dire.
This argument again misstates the defendant' s burden of proof on appeal for a public trial
violation claim. While Phelps is correct that in camera or outside -of the- courtroom questioning
-
of venire members may violate the public trial right, it is Phelps' s burden to establish a violation
and perfect the record for appellate review. Miller, 179 Wn. App. at 1114, 316 P.3d at 1148.
Here, the record is unclear as to when, where, or why the trial court previously spoke
with juror no. 62. Thus, this claim relies, at least in part, on facts outside the record on appeal,
and we do not address issues on direct appeal that rely on facts outside the record. State v.
McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d 322, 335, 899 P.2d 1251 ( 1995). Accordingly, we hold that, on the
record before us, Phelps has not established that a public trial right violation occurred in regard
to the questioning ofjuror no. 62.
4. Other Proceedings
Phelps next argues that "[ t]he trial court erroneously held additional in camera hearings
without undertaking Bone -Club analysis." Br. of Appellant at 14. But Phelps fails to adequately
explain what these in camera proceedings concerned, whether they implicated the public trial
right, and how any violation of the public trial right occurred. We do " not consider conclusory
arguments unsupported by citation to authority." State v. Mason, 170 Wash. App. 375, 384, 285
P.3d 154 ( 2012), review denied, 176 Wash. 2d 1014 ( 2013); see also RAP 10. 3( a)( 6). " Such
11
No. 43557 -8 -II
p] assing treatment of an issue or lack of reasoned argument is insufficient to merit judicial
consideration. "' West v. Thurston County, 168 Wn. App. 162, 187, 275 P.3d 1200 ( 2012)
quoting Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn. App. 533, 538, 954 P.2d 290 ( 1998)). Accordingly,
we refrain from addressing this argument.
B. RIGHT TO BE PRESENT
Phelps next argues that the trial court " violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to be
present at all critical stages of trial" by excusing jurors in his absence. Br. of Appellant at 17.
Because nothing in the record reflects that the trial court excused jurors in Phelps' s absence, we
disagree.
Whether a defendant' s constitutional right to be present has been violated is a question of
law reviewed de novo. State v. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d 874, 880, 246 P.3d 796 ( 2011). A criminal
defendant has a constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of the proceedings. Irby,
170 Wash. 2d at 880. "[ A] defendant has a right to be present at a proceeding ` whenever his
presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness [ sic] of his opportunity to defend
against the charge."
Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 881 ( quoting Snyder v. Mass., 291 U.S. 97, 105 -06, 54
S. Ct. 330, 78 L. Ed. 674 ( 1934), overruled in part on other grounds by Malloy v. Hogan, 378
U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1489, 12 L. Ed. 2d 653 ( 1964)). " The core of the constitutional right to be
present is the right to be present when evidence is being presented." In re Pers. Restraint of
Lord, 123 Wash. 2d 296, 306, 868 P.2d 835 ( 1994). " A violation of the due process right to be
present is subject to harmless error analysis." Irby, 170 Wash. 2d at 885. "[ T]he burden of proving
harmlessness is on the State and it must do so beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Caliguri, 99
Wash. 2d 501, 509, 664 P.2d 466 ( 1983)).
12
No. 43557 -8 -II
Here, Phelps argues that "[ a] t some point, the trial court questioned and excused jurors
outside the courtroom" and, this process " affected the makeup —and hence the fairness —of the
jury that presided over [ his] fate." Br. of Appellant at 18. As explained above, nothing in the
record suggests that any jurors were dismissed in Phelps' s absence. Jurors no. 28 and 48 were
excused for cause in open court, in Phelps' s presence. And juror no. 62 was excused for cause
on the record in open court. Phelps has failed to meet his burden of establishing error.
To the extent that Phelps argues that his right to be present was violated because jurors
were dismissed at sidebar, this claim also fails. Here, the record is not clear as to whether Phelps
was present when the attorneys exercised their for cause challenges at sidebar. Phelps was
present during voir dire, and it appears that Phelps' s claim is based on the allegation that he did
8
not join counsel at sidebar when they exercised for cause challenges. There is no indication in
the record that he did or did not accompany counsel when counsel exercised for cause challenges
at sidebar. Because the record is unclear whether Phelps was present at sidebar during the
exercise of for cause challenges, the claim relies, at least in part, on facts outside the record on
appeal. We do not address issues on direct appeal that rely on facts outside the record.
McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d at 335.
C. DEFICIENT CHARGING DOCUMENT
Phelps next argues that the information charging him with second degree sexual
misconduct with a minor was deficient because it failed to allege that AA was not more. than 21
years old at the time of the offense. Because this apparently missing element may be fairly
implied from the charging document, we disagree.
8
Phelps has presented no authority that " being present" requires standing beside counsel during
a sidebar.
13
No. 43557 -8 -II
We review challenges to the sufficiency of a charging document de novo. State v.
Williams, 162 Wash. 2d 177, 182, 170 P.3d 30 ( 2007). When, as here, a defendant challenges an
information' s sufficiency for the first time on appeal, we liberally construe the document in favor
of validity. State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d 93, 105, 812 P.2d 86 ( 1991). " Words in a charging
document are read as a whole, construed according to common sense, and include facts which
are necessarily implied." Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d at 109. This court' s standard of review
comprises an essential- elements prong prejudice
and an actual - prong. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d at
105. Under the essential -elements prong, the reviewing court looks to the information itself for
some language that gives the defendant notice of the allegedly missing element of the charged
offense. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d at 105 -06. If that language is vague or inartful, then this court
determines under the actual -prejudice prong whether such language prevented the defendant
from receiving actual notice of the charged offense, including the allegedly missing element.
Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d at 106.
Here, the third amended information states:
On or about and between March 25, 2011 through April 3, 2011, in the
County of Lewis, State of Washington, the above -named defendant, ( b) being at
least sixty ( 60) months older than the student and being a school employee and
not being married to the student and not being in a state registered domestic
partnership with the student, did have, or knowingly cause another person under
the age of eighteen ( 18) to have, sexual contact with a registered student of the
school who is at least sixteen ( 16) years old, to -
wit: [ AA] ( DOB: [ 1994]);
contrary to the Revised Code of Washington 9A.44. 096.
Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 43.
To convict Phelps of second degree sexual misconduct with a minor, the State had to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that ( 1) Phelps had sexual contact with AA, (2) AA was at least
16 at the time of the contact but younger than 21, ( 3) AA was not married to Phelps, ( 4) Phelps
14
No. 43557 -8 -II
was at least 60 months older than AA at the time of the sexual contact, ( 5) Phelps was employed
by the school, and ( 6) AA was an enrolled student of the school employing Phelps. RCW
9A.44. 096.
Phelps argues that the charging document is insufficient under the essential -elements
prong of the Kjorsvik test because it failed to explicitly state that AA was younger than 21 at the
time of the crime. Although iriartfully written, the State' s charging document plainly states AA' s
date of birth, indicating that she was 16 at the time of the alleged sexual misconduct. Moreover,
the document lists the charged crime itself as " sexual misconduct with a minor in the second
9
degree," implying the involvement of a " minor. " CP at 43. Keeping in mind the liberal
standard in Kjorsvik, it is clear that, whether the age of majority specific to these circumstances
was 18 or 21, Phelps had notice that the charged crime involved sexual contact with someone
younger than the age of majority. Accordingly, the missing element can be " fairly implied" in
these circumstances. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d at 104.
Although the missing element can be fairly implied, we must determine under the actual -
prejudice prong whether the defendant can " show that he or she was nonetheless actually
prejudiced by the inartful language which caused lack of notice." Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d at 106.
Here, Phelps cannot establish prejudice.
Even if the charging document explicitly stated that the victim must be under .21 years of
age, Phelps' s potential defenses ( consent or alibi) were not affected as it was undisputed
throughout trial that AA was 16 years old at the time the alleged sexual misconduct occurred.
9
Although " minor" is not defined in RCW 9A.44. 096, under Washington law "[ e] xcept as
otherwise specifically provided by law, all persons shall be deemed and taken to be of full age
for all purposes at the age of eighteen years." RCW 26. 28. 010. RCW 9A.44. 096 is one of the
rare exceptions where it is possible for someone over 18 to be treated as a minor.
15
No. 43557 -8 -II
The primary goal of the essential elements rule is to give notice to an accused of the nature of
the crime that he must be prepared to defend against." State v. Lindsey, 177 Wash. App. 233, 245,
311 P.3d 61 ( 2013) ( citing Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d at 101). Therefore, based on facts in this record,
whether Phelps thought he was defending against the charge that he had inappropriate sexual
contact with a 16- year -old or with someone under the age of 18 or under the age of 21 is
immaterial. Accordingly, Phelps has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the inartful
language in the charging document, and Phelps' s argument fails.
D. UNANIMITY INSTRUCTION
Phelps next argues that the trial court violated his right to a unanimous jury verdict by
failing to give a unanimity instruction for the second degree sexual misconduct with a minor
charge. Specifically, he argues that the State " presented evidence that Mr. Phelps had sexual
contact with [ AA] on multiple occasions." Br. of Appellant at 23. While it is true that the State
presented evidence of multiple acts of sexual misconduct in this case, the jury instructions
clearly indicated that the charged crime only involved acts " on or about and between March 26,
2011 through April 2, 2011." CP at 152. At trial, the only evidence presented of sexual contact
during this time frame involved the April 2 incident. Accordingly, no election or unanimity
instruction was required.
We review alleged instructional errors de novo. State v. Sibert, 168 Wash. 2d 306, 311, 230
P.3d 142 ( 2010). " Criminal defendants in Washington have a right to a unanimous jury verdict."
State v. Martinez, 124 Wash. 2d 702, 707, 881 P.2d 231 ( 1994).
Ortega - Accordingly, when the
State presents evidence of multiple acts that could each form the basis of one charged crime,
either the State must elect which of such acts is relied upon for a conviction or the court must
16
No. 43557 -8 -II
instruct the jury to agree on a specific criminal act." State v. Coleman, 159 Wash. 2d 509, 511, 150
P.3d 1126 ( 2007). This requirement " assures a unanimous verdict on one criminal act" by
avoid[ ing] the risk that jurors will aggregate evidence improperly." Coleman, 159 Wash. 2d at
512. " Where there is neither an election nor a unanimity instruction in a multiple acts case,
omission of the unanimity instruction is presumed to result in prejudice." Coleman, 159 Wash. 2d
at 512. Reversal is required unless we determine the error is harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt. Coleman, 159 Wash. 2d at 512.
Here, the trial court instructed the jury that, to convict Phelps of second degree sexual
misconduct with a minor, the State needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt "[ t] hat on or
about and between March 26, 2011 through April 2, 2011, the defendant had sexual contact with
AA]." CP at 152. The trial court defined " sexual contact" as:
Sexual contact means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of
a person done for the purpose of gratifying sexual desires of either party. Contact
is " intimate" if the conduct is of such a nature that a person of common
intelligence could fairly be expected to know that, under the circumstances, the
parts touched were intimate and therefore the touching was improper.
When considering whether a particular touching is done for the purpose of
a gratifying sexual desire, you may consider among other things the nature and
the circumstances of the touching itself.
CP at 153.
At trial, the State presented evidence of only one incident involving sexual contact
between AA and Phelps during the date range in question. This was the April 2 incident where
Phelps straddled AA while she was on his bed, kissed her on the lips; put his tongue in her
mouth, and ground his erection between her legs. Because the State presented evidence of only
one incident involving sexual contact between AA and Phelps during the date range in question,
17
No. 43557 -8 -II
it was not required to make an election, and the trial court did not err in refraining from giving a
unanimity instruction in this situation.
Phelps also argues that a unanimity instruction was required because the State presented
evidence of more sexual misconduct after April 2. This argument is unavailing. As already
discussed, the State charged Phelps with committing sexual misconduct between a specified date
range, March 26 to April 2, and the jury instructions repeated that the jury had to find that the
misconduct occurred during that date range. We presume that juries follow the trial court' s
instruction. State v. Hanna, 123 Wash. 2d 704, 711, 871 P.2d 135, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 919
1994). Accordingly, while the State admittedly presented evidence of other acts involving
sexual contact, none of those acts took place in the specified date range and could not have been
the basis for the jury' s conviction on the sexual misconduct charge.
E. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Phelps last argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument.
We disagree.
To prevail on a prosecutorial misconduct claim, the defendant 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)
quoting State v. Magers, 164 Wash. 2d 174, 191, 189 P.3d 126 ( 2008)). We look to " the evidence
presented, ` the context of the total argument, the issues in the case, the evidence addressed in the
argument, and the instructions given to the jury ' when looking at the context of the entire
record. State v. Monday, 171 Wash. 2d 667, 675, 257 P.3d 551 ( 2011) ( quoting State v. McKenzie,
157 Wash. 2d 44, 52, 134 P.3d 221 ( 2006)). Moreover, a defendant' s failure to object to an
18
No. 43557 -8 -II
improper remark constitutes a waiver of error unless the remark is so flagrant and ill intentioned
that it causes an enduring and resulting prejudice that could not have been neutralized by a
curative instruction to the jury. State v. Emery, 174 Wash. 2d 741, 760 -61, 278 P.3d 653 ( 2012).
During closing statements, Phelps' s attorney argued to the jury that:
You can find [Phelps] not guilty for the rape for two reasons. There was no rape
and [ Phelps] wasn' t there. And I' m going to give you arguments for both. [ AA]
tells us that she disclosed to her aunt, disclosed to her mom and dad, and
disclosed to [ police] that she had sexual intercourse with Todd Phelps.
And on cross -examination, I asked her about some of that stuff. And on
some of my questions she agreed, " I didn' t say no." And she can come in here
and testify this is the detailed sequence of events, but she can' t get away from the
other things she' s already told her aunt and mom and dad and [ police].
And then the prosecutor, why would the prosecutor have in her notes that
AA] said she consented? Why would the prosecutor have in her notes that [ AA]
said she consented if [
AA] didn' t consent ? ".. .
And I guess during their conversations during their seemingly private
conversations when she was talking with the prosecutor and not with me, she told
them that it was consensual. She can' t get away from that.
8 RP at 1 571 -72.
In its rebuttal, the State argued the following without objection,
I will be as brief as possible, but I definitely need to address these points that
defense counsel] has raised because I got to be quite honest with you today, I
didn' t know the defense was one of consent. So I guess [ Phelps] was either there
or he wasn' t. If he was there, you are to believe that [ AA] consented somehow.
Well, let' s work through that. So if you believe [ AA] that [ Phelps] was there, is
there any evidence at all, at all, that [ AA] consented?
The only evidence that [ defense counsel] wants you to hang your hat on is
that he had [ AA] when she was cross -examined, say— agreed that ... when she
was giving a statement that she said, " No, I didn' t stop him." But when I
questioned her with regard to that as to when that conversation was in relation to,
she was specific. It was after he had already entered her with his penis. She was
clear about that. It was not beforehand. It was after.
Now, the other thing that [ defense counsel] tries to discredit [ AA] with
regard to consent is some notes that the Prosecutor' s Office had. He asked her,
well, didn' t you have an interview with the Prosecutor' s Office? Unfortunately,
19
No. 43557 -8 -II
defense counsel] wasn' t there. He' s grasping at straws to get anything. He has
no idea of [what the] context was of the interview. He doesn' t even know what
the notes were about, but we' re obligated to give them to him. Not dated.
So which is it? Was [ Phelps] there and he raped [ AA] or had sex with her
or he wasn' t there?
8 RP at 1580 -82.
Phelps contends that the prosecutor' s statement that he did not realize that consent was at
issue implied " that the defense had been forced to change theories based on the evidence." Br.
of Appellant at 28. "[ T] he prosecutor, as an advocate, is entitled to make a fair response to the
arguments of defense counsel." State v. Russell, 125 Wash. 2d 24, 87, 882 P.2d 747 ( 1994), cent.
denied, 514 U.S. 1129 ( 1995) Here, a fair reading of the record does not reflect that the
prosecutor' s comment was " calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury." In re
Pers. Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wash. 2d 696, 704, 286 P.3d 673 ( 2012). Instead, although the
surprised10
prosecutor was by the defense' s argument that AA had consented to sexual
intercourse with Phelps and expressed that surprise in its brief comment, the prosecutor then
went on to explain why the evidence could not support a theory of consent, especially in light of
AA' s extensive testimony. " It is not misconduct ... for a prosecutor to argue that the evidence
does not support the defense theory." Russell, 125 Wash. 2d at 87.
Phelps also argues that the prosecutor' s statement that defense counsel was " grasping at
straws to get anything" while discussing AA' s interview with the prosecutor' s office was an
10 Throughout trial, Phelps' s defense focused almost exclusively on establishing that Phelps
could not have committed the rape when the State argued it occurred and, additionally, that no
evidence of the rape remained at the crime scene.
20
No. 43557 -8 -II
inappropriate comment on the evidence and that this expressed the prosecutor' s personal opinion
about Phelps' s guilt. 8 RP at 1582. This argument is unpersuasive.
First, Phelps' s argument about consent relied exclusively on a handwritten note in the
margin of a statement seemingly written by one of the prosecutors. It was appropriate for the
prosecution to point out that defense counsel was not at the interview and could not know the
context of the note or what the prosecutor was thinking when the note was written. Russell, 125
Wash. 2d at 87. Second, the " grasping at straws" comment was clearly directed to defense
counsel' s theory of the case and did not reflect the prosecutor' s personal view of Phelps' s guilt
or innocence. 8 RP at 1582. Phelps fails to establish prosecutorial misconduct in these
circumstances.
F. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Phelps also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
prosecutor' s above -described statements in closing argument. To demonstrate ineffective
assistance, a defendant must show that ( 1) defense counsel' s representation was deficient
because it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and ( 2) the deficient representation
prejudiced the defendant because there is a reasonable probability that the result of the
proceeding would have been different except for counsel' s errors. McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d at
334 -35. Here, because Phelps fails to establish prosecutorial misconduct, he cannot show that
his trial counsel was deficient for failing to object, and this argument necessarily fails.
21
No. 43557 -8 - II
We affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2. 06. 040, it is so ordered.
22