finding that the proper unit of prosecution is one based on the Court’s prior construction of the term "any” and the rule of lenity
How later courts described this case
- finding that the proper unit of prosecution is one based on the Court’s prior construction of the term "any” and the rule of lenity
- concluding intended unit of prosecution under statute “is one count per possession of child pornography, without regard to the number of images comprising such possession or the number of minors depicted in the images possessed”
- evidence admitted to show intent that “would 17 No. 81567-9-I/18 merely show [the defendant’s] predisposition toward molesting children” is “subject to exclusion under ER 404(b)”
- evidence of child pornography not admissible in trial regarding child molestation because it would show only defendant’s general predisposition and not his sexual desire for the specific victim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Fairhurst, J.
¶41 (concurring in part and dissenting in part) — I agree with the majority on the unit of prosecution issue. I agree with the dissent on the severance issue.
Madsen, J., concurs with Fairhurst, J.