IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v. DALE A. TENINTY,

Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 37253

- 7

- III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

P ENNELL , C. J.

— Dale Teninty appeals his convictions for two counts of child molestation. We affirm. FACTS When A.E. was seven years old, she disclosed to her cousin and then her mother that she had been molested by Dale Teninty, a man who had previously lived in her family’s home. Prior to this disclosure, the m other and the cousin had warned A.E. about bad touches and told her that they had been the victims of molest ation when they
were young . A.E.’s mother contacted the p olice and A.E. participated in two forensic interview s . Mr. Teninty was subsequently charge d with one count of attempted first degree child molestation and three counts of completed first degree child molestation

. The case went to trial. 

### FILED MAY 11 , 2021 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division IIINo. 37253

- 7

- III

Sta te v. Teninty

2 During voir dire, juror 34 disclosed he had a friend w ho had been accused of child molestation. Juror 34 exp lained he had testified as a character witness for the friend and that the events occurred roughly a decade or so ago , when the friend was in his 30 s and the child was 14 or 15. When the court asked juror 34 if he could be impartial, the following colloquy occurred:

JUROR NO. 34: I think

— well, yeah. Basically, I think that you’re going to have to prove to me that he did it before I’m going to. Other than that, yeah. THE COURT: Okay. So you said that with a fair amount of conviction. JUROR NO. 34: Well, yeah. THE COURT: So did you think your friend was wrongfully charged? JUROR NO. 34: I do. THE COURT: All right. JUROR NO. 34: But I will tell you that he walked out of there, the jury was 11 in favor of him and one in favor of guilty. So my opinion is the fellow spent several months in jail for nothing, you know, what I mean. THE COURT: Yes, I do. That’s helpful. So do you think given that experience and particularly what you just highlighted about you[r] friend having spent undue time in jail, that you would be inclined to hold the State to a higher burden? JUROR NO. 34: I’m not sure what you mean by that. I don’t think that

— well, I think if there’s proof and I believed that somebody did something, well, then I’m going to say guilty. But if I don’t fully believe that they did something, I would not say guilty. So I don’t think that

— I don’t think it would

— I don’t think it would change my opinion, you know what I mean. THE COURT: So let me ask you a little different [ ly]. Do you think you can be unbia sed? JUROR NO. 34: I do, actually.No. 37253

- 7

- III

Sta te v. Teninty

3

THE COURT: And impartial? JUROR NO. 34: Yeah, I do.
2 Report of Proceedings ( RP ) (Oct. 15, 2019) at 257

- 59. The prosecuto r then questioned him further. [THE PROSECUTOR]: Fair to say you think your friend was treated unfairly? JUROR NO. 34: Well, given

— yeah, pretty much. [THE PROSECUTOR]: Do you think that was

— who would be treated unfairly by, law enforcement or the courts or what specific part of it? JUROR NO. 34: I wouldn’t say that law enforcement or the courts. Basically, it was the person accusing my friend. It’s just that laws are what they are and he had to go where he had to go until matters were resolved, so to speak.

. . . . [THE PROSECUTOR]: So do you think that anything from that experience or those emo tions could impact [how you view] our case here in court? JUROR NO. 34: You know, I guess I can’t really say because I don’t know the circumstances. But I guess if I feel it’s along the same lines, I could be persuaded by the situation.

. . . . JUROR NO. 34: I mean, like it was the same circumstances and somebody was saying this and this and I knew that it wasn’t true

— basically I can tell you what the deal was in the end is the younger gal was trying to date an older guy like in his late 20s, okay. So he said no way, you can’t do that because he was with her mother, you know. He was the father figure for three or four years at this point. And basically this was her way to get rid of him so she could have what she wanted. And that’s the way the jury viewed it at the end. So if it’s the same kind of thing, I could see where I could be persuaded to see it.No. 37253

- 7

- III

Sta te v. Teninty

4

[THE PROSECUTOR]: Do you think some of that background information and things that you saw in your own experience could impact you? JUROR NO. 34: It’s pos sible. [THE PROSECUTOR]: Okay. JUROR NO. 34: I guess it could because I don’t know what went on here, so I have no idea. [THE PROSECUTOR]: Okay. So would it be fair to say if things did start maybe making you think of your experience or started bringing some of that back, that that could affect your ability to be fair in our case? JUROR NO. 34: It is possible, yeah, now that you mention it like that. Yeah, I guess it is possible. Id . at 259

- 62. The court subsequently granted the prosecutor’s motion to strike juror 34 for cause over Mr. Teninty’s objection

. At the conclusion of trial, the jury convicted Mr. Teninty of two counts of first degree child molestation. The counts were specific to two different locations. One pertained to an incident on a gre en chair on the porch of A.E.’s residence. The other pertained to an incident inside the home in what was referred to as “ ‘ Papa’s ’ chair.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 225. At sentencing, the court counted each offense separately against the oth er over Mr. Teni nty’s objection that the counts constituted the same criminal conduct

. The court determined Mr. Teninty had an offender score of 3 and a total indeterminate sentencing range of 67 to 89 months to life. He was sentenced to a minimum of 82 months
concurrent confin ement for each offense.No. 37253

- 7

- III

Sta te v. Teninty

5 Mr. Teninty timely appeals his judgment and sentence

. ANALYSIS Excusal of j

ur or for cause Mr. Teninty conte nds the trial court committed struct ural error by dismissing juror
34 for actual bias. According to Mr. T eninty, the p rosecutor’s justifications for striking juror 34 were discriminatory. Mr. Teninty does not allege juror 34 was a person of color or that the prosecutor had actual animus toward juror 34 . Instead, Mr. Teninty makes a disparate impact argument. He points out that people of color are disproportionately targeted by the criminal justice system. Given this circumstance , striking a juror for cause because the juror has a friend who faced charges similar to the defendant’s has a discriminatory impact and therefore deprives the defe ndant of his right to a fair an d impartial jury. Mr. Teninty’s argu ments miss the mark because he confuse s the analysis applicable to for

- cause challenges and peremptory challenges. 1

1 We also question the factual premise of Mr. Teni nty’s argument. While people of color are woefully over

- represented in the criminal justice system, it is not clear that people of color make up a disproportiona te number of individuals charged with child molestation.No. 37253

- 7

- III

Sta te v. Teninty

6 A for

- cause challenge is one based on a juror’s indivi dual qualification s for service. RCW 4.44.150 ; CrR 6.4(c)

. A juror’s actual b i as can serve as a reason for a for

cause challenge. RCW 4.44.170(2). But in order to grant a for

- cause challenge based on actual bias, the court must be satisfied that the juror cannot disregard pre existing opinions and try the case impartially. RCW 4.44.190. Peremptory challenges may be applied to prospective jurors who have not been excluded for cause. CrR 6.4(e)(2). “A peremptory challenge is an objection to a juror
f or which there is no reason given , but upon which the court shall exclude the juror.”
CrR 6.4(e)(1)

. “However, the Equal Protection Clause limits the exercise of peremptory challenges by prohibiting their use to exclude otherwise qualified and unbiased jurors base d upon their race.” State v. Vreen , 99 Wn. App. 662, 666, 994 P.2d 905 (2000). The current process for determining whether a peremptory strike violates equal protection is set forth in GR 37. 2 Under the terms of the rule, a party or the court may

2 GR 37 was adopted in 2018 and was effective at the time of Mr. Teninty’s 2019 trial.No. 37253

- 7

- III

Sta te v. Teninty

7 object to the use of a peremptory challenge on the basis of improper bias. When a GR 37 objection is made, the party exercising the peremptory challenge must articulate reasons for the challenge. GR 37(d). The court must then make a determination as to whether “a n objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge

. . . .” GR 37(e). “If the court determines that an obj ective observer could view

race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge, the n the peremptory challenge shall be denied.” Id

. One of the considerations a court should make in assessing the discriminatory nature of a peremptory strike is whether the reason for a strike “might be disproportionately associated with a race or ethnicity .” GR 37 (g) (iv). Presumptively invalid reasons for peremptory strikes include a juror’s “prior contact with law enforcement officers,” “expressing a distrust of law enforcement,” and “having a close relationship with people who have been stopped, arreste d, or convicted of a crime.”
GR 37(h)(i)

- (iii). The prosecution challenged juror 34 for cause; it was not a peremptory challenge. As such, the only issue before the court was whether juror 34 was laboring under actual bias. A biased juror may be excluded re gardless of race. Mr. Teninty cites no authority for
t he claim that a juror laboring under actual bias cannot be removed from a particular case because certain types of bias are more likely to be shared by people of color than byNo. 37253

- 7

- III

Sta te v. Teninty

8 whites. 3
Mr. Teni n ty also claims that, regardles s of his disparate impact argument , the trial
court erred when it granted the State’s motion to strike juror 34 for cause. To prevail on this argument, Mr. Teninty must show the trial court committed a “manifest abuse of discretion.” State v. Noltie , 116 Wn.2d 831, 838, 809 P.2d 190 (1991). This is a difficult standard. When it comes to assessing a trial court’s decision on a chall enge for cause,

we must keep in mind that the trial court has the advantage of observing a juror’s
demeano r and is therefore “in the best position to determine a juror’s ability to be fair and impartial.” Id . at 839. Even where reasonable minds can differ, we will uphold a trial court’s decision so long as it falls within the broad range of a reasonable decisi on. See i d

. The trial court here had a tenable basis for granting the State’s motion to strike juror 34 for cause. During his colloquy with the court and prosecutor, juror 34 admitted that if the ci rcumstances of Mr. Teninty’s ca se caused him to start thi nking about his friend’s case, his ability to be fair would be impaired. Juror 34’s concerns were about the

3 The primary authority cited by Mr. Teninty is the plurality opinion of State v. Pierce , 195 Wn.2d 230, 455 P. 3d 647 (2020). Pierce had to do with the State interjecting bias into the jury pool by eliciting a conversation about the death penalty. It had nothing to do with for

- cause challenges.No. 37253

- 7

- III

Sta te v. Teninty

9 veracity of the complaining witness in the friend’s case. This circumstance was similar
to the defense raised by Mr. Teninty in his case. While it would have been impossible for the court to delve into juror 34 ’s mind and assess whether the specifics of his prior experience would be triggered by the evidence to be elicited in Mr. Teninty’s trial, the trial court did have an adequate basis for conclud ing juror 34 met the criteria of actual bias. See RCW 4.44.190 . The trial court therefore properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion to strike. CrR 6.4(c). Admission of child hearsay statements Prior to trial, the State sought to admit out

- o f

- court statements made by A.E. to her mother, her cousin, and the forensic investigator under RCW 9A.44.120 . The trial court held a n evidentiary hearing and ruled the hearsay statements admissible. The court issued written findings in support of its decis ion, consistent with the criteria set by the Supreme Court in State v. Ryan , 103 Wn.2d 165, 175

- 76, 691 P.2d 197 (1984). The court found that all the applicable factors weighed in favor of admitting A.E.’s statements. On appeal, Mr. Teninty argues the hea rsay statements should not have been admitted because they were not reliable. Mr. Teninty does not assign error to any of the trial court’s factual findings. Instead, Mr. Teninty broadly claims A.E.’s memories ofNo. 37253

- 7

- III

Sta te v. Teninty

10 abuse were irreparably tainted by her mothe r and cousin, both of whom warned A.E. about their own histories of abuse. Mr. Teninty’s child hearsay claim fails. While a mother’s warning to her child
about the dangers of sexual assault might provide fodder for cross

- examination, it defies common sens e to think that the mere provision of warnings wil l render a child incompetent to testify about her own experiences of victimization . In any event, there are no facts in the record suggesting the specific information relayed by A.E.’s mother and
cousin wer e impermissibly suggestive. There is no indication that A.E.’s mother or cousin pressured A.E. to come forward against Mr. Teninty. Nor was there any indication that A.E.’s mother or cousin provided A.E. with details about their own experiences with abuse, let alone details similar to the ones alleged by A.E. Finally , Mr. Teninty has not challenged any of the trial court’s findings, including the finding that A.E. had an independent recollection of the events in question. 4 Given the record at hand, we have no basis for disturbing the trial court’s child hearsay ruling. See State v. Homan , 181 Wn.2d 102, 106, 330 P.3d 182 (2014).

4 The court found, “A.E. retained an independent recollection of the ti meframe and events in question.” CP at 22 6 . Although this finding was mislabeled as a conclusion of law, it is properly “treated as a finding of fact.” Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co. , 162 Wn.2d 340, 353, 172 P.3d 688 (2007).No. 37253

- 7

- III

Sta te v. Teninty

11 S ame criminal conduct Mr. Teninty contends the trial court erred by counting his two convictions separately because they involved the same intent, victim, and location. The State counters that the court correctly separated the offenses as they occurred at different times and in different parts of the victim’ s home. We agree with the State. Two or more crimes can be treated as the “s ame criminal conduct” for sentencing purposes if they “require the same criminal intent, are committed at the same time and place, and involve the same victim. ” RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a)

. The burden of proving same criminal conduct falls on the defense and we re view a trial court’s same criminal conduct
decision for abuse of discretion. State v. Graciano , 176 Wn.2d 531, 537

- 39 , 295 P.3d 219 (2013). We will only find an abuse of discretion when the record supports “only one conclusion on whether the crimes constit ute the ‘same criminal conduct. ’” Id . at 538. As noted by the State, Mr. Teninty’s same criminal conduct argument fails because he cannot show the crimes against A.E. occurred at the same time and place. According to A.E., the abuse happened on differen t occasions in different locations of her home. The trial court properly denied Mr. Teninty’s request to treat the two convictions as the same
criminal conduct.No. 37253-7-111 State v. Teninty



### CONCLUSION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
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. 

# Q,
Pennell, C.J.
WE CONCUR:

# ~~ 

# ,.::r. Fearing, 

# j Staab, J.

12