State Of Washington, Res/cross-app. V. Jaime Jovany Cruz-pelayo, App/cross-res.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
JAIME JOVANY CRUZ-PELAYO,
Appellant.
No. 68319-5-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: June 17, 2013
y~>
< 0 Cv
cP 	•>•"
Grosse, J. — Child hearsay is admissible under RCW 9A.44.120(1) if sufficient
indicia of reliability are present. 	And, a juvenile's confession is admissible if, under the
totality of the circumstances, the confession was voluntary. 	Here, the trial court did not
abuse 	its 	discretion 	in finding 	that 	the 	child 	hearsay 	was 	reliable 	and 	therefore
admissible and that the juvenile respondent's confession was voluntary and therefore
admissible. Accordingly, we affirm.
Jaime Cruz-Pelayo (born May 19, 1996) was found guilty of two counts of first
degree 	child 	molestation. 	The 	incidents occurred 	between 	January 	1, 2010 	and
October 31, 2010. 	Cruz-Pelayo assigns error to the trial court's admission of out-of-
court statements the victim, K.R.F. (born February 23, 2002), made to her mother and
Cruz-Pelayo's statements to the investigating officers.
I. 	Admission of Child Hearsay
In February 2011, K.R.F., alone with her mother in the kitchen, asked her mother
if she could talk to her about something. 	K.R.F. told her mother that Cruz-Pelayo had
touched her "inside of my clothes, inside of my underpants, and he put his fingers inside
of me." K.R.F. told her mother that Cruz-Pelayo touched her in her "private part," which,
according to the mother, meant her vagina.

No. 68319-5-1/2
K.R.F. made similar statements to her stepfather when he entered the kitchen
while she and her mother were talking. 	K.R.F. also told an examining physician, Dr.
Yolanda Duralde, that Cruz-Pelayo touched her on more than one occasion, both on top
of and underneath her clothes, and told her not to tell anybody. 	And, she made similar
statements to Carolyn Webster, a child interview specialist from the prosecutor's office.
The trial court ruled that K.R.F.'s statements to her mother, Dr. Duralde, and Webster
were admissible. 	On appeal, Cruz-Pelayo challenges the admissibility of only K.R.F.'s
statements to her mother.
This court reviews a trial court's decision to admit child hearsay for abuse of
discretion.1 	An out-of-court statement by a testifying child victim is admissible under
RCW 9A.44.120(1) if the court finds "that the time, content, and circumstances of the
statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability."2 	In determining the reliability of child
hearsay, a court considers nine nonexclusive factors: (1) whether the declarant had an
apparent motive to lie, (2) the declarant's general character, (3) whether more than one
person heard the statement, (4) the spontaneity of the statement, (5) the timing of the
declaration and the relationship between the declarant and the witness, (6) whether the
1 State v. Kennealv, 151 Wn. App. 861, 879, 214 P.3d 200 (2009).
2 RCW 9A.44.120(1) provides:
A statement made by a child when under the age of ten describing
any act of sexual contact performed with or on the child by another,
describing any attempted act of sexual contact with or on the child by
another, or describing any act of physical abuse of the child by another
that results in substantial bodily harm as defined by RCW 9A.04.110, not
otherwise admissible by statute or court rule, is admissible in evidence in
dependency proceedings under Title 13 RCW and criminal proceedings,
including 	juvenile 	offense 	adjudications, 	in 	the courts of the state of
Washington if:
(1) The court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of
the jury, 	that the time, 	content, 	and circumstances of the statement
provide sufficient indicia of reliability!..]

No. 68319-5-1/3
statement contains express assertions of past fact, (7) whether the declarant's lack of
knowledge 	could be 	established 	by cross-examination, 	(8) 	the 	possibility 	of the
declarant's 	recollection being faulty is remote, 	and 	(9) whether the 	circumstances
suggest 	the 	declarant 	misrepresented 	the 	defendant's 	involvement.3 	The 	court
considers these factors as a whole; no single factor is decisive.4
Here, the trial court found that factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 weighed in favor of
the admissibility of K.R.F.'s out-of-court statements and that factors 6 and 7 were not
relevant. 	On appeal, Cruz-Pelayo agrees that factors 6 and 7 are not relevant and that
factors 1 and 2 weigh in favor of admissibility. 	He also states that factor 9 is covered by
factors 3 and 5. He argues that the remaining factors weigh against the admissibility of
K.R.F.'s statements and that the statements were not admissible.
Whether More than One Person Heard the Statement
This factor is satisfied where the child repeated similar statements to different
people on different occasions.5 	Here, 	K.R.F. 	made similar statements on different
occasions to her mother, her stepfather, Dr. Duralde, and Webster.
Spontaneity of the Statements
Cruz-Pelayo 	concedes that K.R.F.'s 	initial 	statements to her mother 	were
spontaneous, 	but argues that 	her subsequent statements to 	her mother were 	not
spontaneous 	because they were 	made 	in 	response 	to 	the 	mother's closed-ended
questions. 	Cruz-Pelayo argues that, at best, this factor is neutral.
3 State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165, 175-76, 691 P.2d 197 (1984).
4 State v. Swan. 114 Wn.2d 613, 652, 790 P.2d 610 (1990).
5State v. Lopez, 95 Wn. App. 842, 853, 980 P.2d 224 (1999) (statements to the mother,
the police, and a forensic interviewer of sexually abused children).

No. 68319-5-1/4
A child's statement is spontaneous when made in response to a question that is
neither leading 	nor suggestive.6 	Here, 	as the State points out, 	K.R.F.'s 	mother's
questions, if suggestive, were intended to elicit responses that minimized the abuse,
and K.R.F. did not respond to any suggestiveness inherent in her mother's questions.
Rather, K.R.F.'s responses to her mother's questions made the abuse more egregious
than the questions suggested. 	For example, K.R.F's mother asked whether somebody
"tr[ied]" to touch her, rather than whether somebody actually did touch her. 	K.R.F.
replied that no, Cruz-Pelayo actually did touch her. Also, when K.R.F. told her mother
that Cruz-Pelayo touched her, the mother asked her, "But it was only over the clothes?"
K.R.F. replied that no, Cruz-Pelayo touched her under her clothes as well.
Timing of the Statement and the Relationship Between the Declarant and the
Witness
K.R.F.'s family stopped going to Cruz-Pelayo's family's house in October 2011.
K.R.F.'s statements to her mother occurred in February 2011. 	Cruz-Pelayo argues that
this time period favors 	a finding 	of unreliability. 	But, 	Cruz-Pelayo fails to cite any
authority or make any meaningful argument to support this assertion. 	Nor does he
explain his contention that the trial court "took a very narrow and unreasonable view" of
this factor. 	We agree with the trial court that there is nothing about the time of the
statements that renders them unreliable.
Cruz-Pelayo argues that the fact that K.R.F.'s statements were made to her
mother shows unreliability. 	But, "[wjhen the witness is in a position of trust with a child,
6 State v. Henderson, 48 Wn. App. 543, 550, 740 P.2d 329 (1987).

No. 68319-5-1/5
this factor is likely to enhance the reliability of the child's statement."7 The record shows
that K.R.F. 	had a strong 	relationship with her mother. 	The fact that she made the
statements to her mother supports the trial court's finding of reliability.
Possibility of Faulty Recollection
Cruz-Pelayo argues that this factor weighs heavily against reliability because
some of K.R.F.'s statements to her mother were inconsistent with her later testimony.
While some of the details of K.R.F.'s statements were inconsistent, her statements that
Cruz-Pelayo touched her on top of and underneath her clothes remained consistent.
And, importantly, her statements to Dr. Duralde and Webster were consistent with those
to 	her 	mother. 	Consistent statements to others supports the 	conclusion 	that 	the
witness's recollection is not faulty.8 	Further, "'[a] young child is unlikely to fabricate a
graphic account of sexual activity because such activity is beyond the realm of [a
child's] experience.'"9
In sum, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that
K.R.F.'s statements to her mother were reliable and therefore admissible.
II. 	Admission of Cruz-Pelavo's Statements
Child Protective Services referred the case to the Monroe Police Department.
Officer Max 	Michel, 	the Monroe 	High 	School resource officer, 	and Monroe 	Police
Department Detective Spencer Robinson investigated the matter. 	Detective Robinson
7 Kennealv, 	151 Wn. App. at 884 (holding that the fact that the children made the
statements to their family members, with whom they were in a relationship of trust, and
to police officers and nurses, whom they trusted because of their authoritative position
in the community, supported the trial court's finding of reliability ofthe statements).
8 Swan, 114Wn.2dat652.
9 Kennealv, 151 Wn. App. at 884 (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Frev, 43 Wn.
App. 605, 610, 718 P.2d 846 (1986)).

No. 68319-5-1/6
asked Officer Michel to contact Cruz-Pelayo for an interview in regards to a crime the
detective was investigating. 	Officer Michel, armed and in uniform, took Cruz-Pelayo to
his office in the school where Detective Robinson, in plain clothes but also armed, was
waiting.
Detective Robinson read Cruz-Pelayo his rights under Miranda v. Arizona10 from
a department-issued card, and Cruz-Pelayo waived his rights. 	Cruz-Pelayo did not
indicate that he did not understand any of his rights, nor did he indicate that he was
afraid or intimidated. 	No threats, promises, or other means of coercion were used to get
Cruz-Pelayo to talk.
Detective Robinson asked Cruz-Pelayo about K.R.F.'s allegations. 	Initially, Cruz-
Pelayo said that K.R.F. must have mistaken him for his brother and later said that he
and K.R.F. were playing roughly and he grabbed her leg and threw her on the bed. 	He
explained that the roughhousing could have been why K.R.F. made the allegations.
Because Cruz-Pelayo's statements differed so dramatically from K.R.F.'s allegations,
Detective Robinson asked Cruz-Pelayo if he would be willing to take a polygraph test. 	It
does 	not 	appear 	that 	Cruz-Pelayo 	answered 	the 	detective's 	question 	about 	the
polygraph, but rather talked again about the roughhousing. 	At that point, Detective
Robinson took a break with Officer Michel to discuss Cruz-Pelayo's responses to the
questioning.
Upon returning to the room, Detective Robinson told Cruz-Pelayo that he did not
feel he was being fully truthful with them. Cruz-Pelayo then told the officers that K.R.F.
went under the bed, called for Cruz-Pelayo to join her, and, when he was under the bed
10 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).

No. 68319-5-1/7
with her, grabbed his hand, pulled it to her vagina, and forced him to rub her. 	He said
he stopped after about five seconds because he realized that what he was doing was
wrong. 	Cruz-Pelayo said he lied about the incident because he did not want to get into
trouble for it.
Detective Robinson asked Cruz-Pelayo if he was willing to write a statement.
Cruz-Pelayo said he would, but because he was shaken up from his disclosures, he
asked Detective Robinson to write a statement for him. 	According to Officer Michel, a
person's being too shaken up to write a statement is not uncommon. 	Before writing
Cruz-Pelayo's statement, Detective Robinson went over the constitutional rights form
line by line. Cruz-Pelayo signed the form. 	Detective Robinson wrote the statement and
went over it with Cruz-Pelayo. 	Cruz-Pelayo signed the statement and adopted it as his
own.
Cruz-Pelayo testified that 	he was 	confused, 	scared, 	and 	nervous 	during the
interview. 	He said he changed his story during the interview because he wanted to get
out of the room. 	He claimed he "invented a story to get out of there" and that none of
the story about K.R.F. forcing him to touch her was true. 	Cruz-Pelayo testified that he
might have read the statement Detective Robinson wrote, but then forgot its contents
because he was not paying attention. 	He also testified that he understood he had the
right to remain silent, but did not pay attention to that either.
Cruz-Pelayo 	moved to suppress 	his statements to Detective 	Robinson 	and
Officer Michel. 	The trial court determined that the statements were made knowingly,
willfully, and voluntarily after a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his Miranda
rights. Accordingly, the court found the statements admissible.

No. 68319-5-1/8
On appeal, Cruz-Pelayo argues that his statements were not voluntary and that
he did not voluntarily waive his rights prior to acknowledging the written statement. 	In
reviewing 	the 	denial 	of a 	motion to 	suppress, 	we 	determine 	whether 	substantial
evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact and whether those findings support
the conclusions of law.11 	We review conclusions of law de novo.12
A defendant waives his or her Miranda rights if the waiver is knowing, voluntary,
and intelligent.13 	It is the State's burden to prove voluntariness by a preponderance of
the evidence.14 	In determining whether a juvenile's confession was voluntary, we
consider the totality ofthe circumstances.15
The 	test 	for 	voluntariness 	is 	whether 	the 	defendant 	made 	the 	free 	and
unconstrained choice to confess.16 Factors a court considers in assessing the totality of
the 	circumstances include the 	defendant's 	physical condition, age, 	mental 	abilities,
experience, and conduct of the police.17 	"State courts have a responsibility to examine
confessions of a juvenile with special care."18
Here, considering the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports
the trial court's finding that Cruz-Pelayo was fully aware of and understood his Miranda
rights and knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived them. 	The officers' testimony
shows that they did 	not use force, 	threats, 	coercion, 	or intimidation to elicit Cruz-
11 State v. Ross, 106 Wn. App. 876, 880, 26 P.3d 298 (2001).
12 State v. Acrev, 148 Wn.2d 738, 745, 64 P.3d 594 (2003).
13 Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444; State v. Bradford, 95 Wn. App. 935, 944, 978 P.2d 534
(1999).
^4 State v. Braun, 82 Wn.2d 157, 162, 509 P.2d 742 (1973).
15 State v. Unga, 165Wn.2d95, 103, 196 P.3d 645 (2008).
16 State v. Thompson, 73 Wn. App. 122, 131, 867 P.2d 691 (1994) (quoting Scjineckjoth
y. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973)).
17 State v. Aten, 130 Wn.2d 640, 663-64, 927 P.2d 210 (1996).
18 Unga, 165 Wn.2d at 103.

No. 68319-5-1/9
Pelayo's 	oral or written 	statements. 	The testimony also 	shows 	that 	Cruz-Pelayo
understood his Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent, and voluntarily chose
to make his statements. 	The trial court's finding of voluntariness 	is supported 	by
substantial evidence, and this finding supports the court's conclusion that Cruz-Pelayo's
statements were admissible.
Affirmed.
A
WE CONCUR:
Jt^>/i 	&.</. 	Sfr^uUlQ^