State v. Hosier

133 P.3d 936 (Wash. 2006) · Supreme Court of Washington · May 11, 2006 · No. No. 76785-8

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed Richard Leon Hosier's convictions for communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. The court held that communication requires transmission and receipt, but does not require the minor to receive the precise wording of the message or understand its sexual nature. The court also rejected Hosier's claim that the Court of Appeals had improperly added a foreseeability element or violated free speech protections.

Holdings

  1. A communication under former RCW 9.68A.090 requires transmission of a message by the defendant and receipt of that message by the minor, but the minor need not receive the precise wording of the original message or understand its sexually explicit meaning.
  2. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Hosier communicated with M.S. for an immoral purpose because her father conveyed that the notes were sexually threatening, described her, and had been placed where she commonly played.
  3. The evidence was sufficient to prove communication with the children even though they could not read or understand the written message.
  4. Foreseeability is not an element of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes; the State must prove that the defendant intended the communication to reach the child.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether former RCW 9.68A.090 requires a completed communication to include both transmission and receipt of the defendant's message.
  2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the message placed in the neighbor's yard was received by the minor when the minor learned of its sexual and threatening nature through her father rather than reading the notes herself.
  3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish communication with the children who discovered the sexually explicit message on the underpants even though they could not read or understand the written message.
  4. Whether the Court of Appeals improperly added a foreseeability element to former RCW 9.68A.090, creating an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (18)

  • State v. Myles, 127 Wash. 2d 807, 816, 903 P.2d 979 (1995)(followed)
  • State v. Joy, 121 Wash. 2d 333, 338-39, 851 P.2d 654 (1993)(followed)
  • State v. Green, 94 Wash. 2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980)(followed)
  • State v. Salinas, 119 Wash. 2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992)(followed)
  • State v. Hill, 123 Wash. 2d 641, 644, 870 P.2d 313 (1994)(followed)
  • State v. Alvarez, 105 Wash. App. 215, 220, 19 P.3d 485 (2001)(followed)
  • State v. McNallie, 120 Wash. 2d 925, 933, 846 P.2d 1358 (1993)(followed)
  • State v. Pietrzak, 100 Wash. App. 291, 294-95, 997 P.2d 947 (2000)(followed)
  • State v. Falco, 59 Wash. App. 354, 358-59, 796 P.2d 796 (1990)(followed)
  • State v. Schimmelpfennig, 92 Wash. 2d 95, 97-98, 101, 103-04, 594 P.2d 442 (1979)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Washington Supreme Court