This case involves truly horrible facts concerning molestation by the Defendant of ‘L.M.’, who he befriended as a volunteer school math tutor. L.M.’s home environment was extremely unstable: she often came to school hungry and unbathed. The Defendant noticed this and started inviting L.M. to his house to play with his children. L.M. soon started sleeping over, often in the Defendant’s bed with his child! The Defendant made L.M. touch him and perform oral sex. L.M. spent a lot of time at the Defendant’s home. He threatened to send her back home to her parents if she resisted his assault.
The Defendant decided in 2015 to move his family from California to Port Angels, Washington. L.M., age 10, wanted to go with the Callahans, and her biological parents agreed. The Defendant agreed to take her with his family, and continued to sexually assault her almost daily through high school! The Defendant threatened to send her back to California if she refused to have intercourse with her. L.M. did not want to return to her biological parents.
In October, 2021, the Defendant had L.M. perform oral sex on him. She was 18, and “just snapped and decided to leave.” She told her boyfriend, left the house, and reported the Defendant’s abuse to the police. The Defendant was convicted at trial of first and second degree sexual misconduct with a minor, third degree rape, and second degree trafficking. The Defendant moved to dismiss the trafficking charge for insufficient evidence, but the court denied his motion. The Defendant argued insufficient evidence supported trafficking because no evidence existed that he caused L.M. to engage in a commercial sex act. RCW 9A.40.100(3)(a)(1) requires to convict:
A person engages in trafficking when he harbors, transports, obtains or receives by any means another person, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the other person is less than 18 years of age and is caused to engage in a commercial sex act
Commercial sex act is defined by RCW 9A.40.100(6)(a) as any act of sexual contact or intercourse for which something of value is given or received by any person. The Defendant did not argue he transported L.M., but contested to do so was a commercial sex act. L.M. testified that she would often resist the Defendant’s sexual assaults, but gave in when he threatened to return her to her parents in California, which she occurred not want. The Court held that a rational trier of fact could find a commercial sex act because L.M. engaged in sex acts with the Defendant “in return for ongoing housing, food and support of her basic needs – things of value.” The Defendant argued that a commercial sex act involves the “participation of a third party.” The Court held this argument failed because the Washington State statute “expressed a legislative intent to include every exchange of sex for value as a commercial sex act. The broad [statutory] language does not limit commercial sex acts to sexual contact with a third party.”
The Defendant challenged the trafficking count because it carried a 240 month sentence, which was well deserved. The jury found exceptional circumstances that the Defendant’s crimes were an ongoing pattern of abuse (From age 9 to 18) and that he abused a position of trust.
It is hard to imagine a more egregious example of abuse of trust. It is also hard to fathom how bad L.M.’s biological parents were, that she did not want to go back to them in California.