State v. Swan

Supreme Court of Washington · 1990 · Evidence

114 Wash.2d 613 (1990)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceHearsayChild victim hearsayCorroborationReliabilityCompetencyRCW 9A.44.120corroboration of the act

Facts

The State charged William and Kathleen Swan with statutory rape based on statements made by their 3-year-old daughter, B.A., and her 3-year-old friend, R.T., to daycare workers and a CPS worker. The trial court found both children incompetent to testify and admitted their hearsay statements under RCW 9A.44.120 after finding them reliable. The principal dispute on appeal was whether there was sufficient corroborative evidence of R.T.'s alleged abuse, since she was unavailable as a witness. The record included parallel disclosures by both girls, descriptions showing precocious sexual knowledge, R.T.'s complaints of pain and conduct with an anatomically correct doll, and evidence bearing on B.A.'s abuse.

Issue

When a child declarant is unavailable under RCW 9A.44.120, was there sufficient corroborative evidence of the act to permit admission of R.T.'s hearsay statements describing sexual abuse? The case also asked whether the trial court erred on several evidentiary and procedural rulings, including reliability, competency, rebuttal evidence, and expert testimony.

Rule

A child's hearsay description of sexual abuse is admissible under RCW 9A.44.120 if the trial court finds sufficient indicia of reliability and, if the child is unavailable, corroborative evidence of the act. Corroborative evidence means evidence of sufficient circumstances to support a logical and reasonable inference that the abuse occurred; because direct proof is often absent in child sexual abuse cases, corroboration may include indirect evidence such as parallel disclosures, precocious sexual knowledge, behavioral evidence, complaints of pain, and other circumstances, assessed case by case. Reliability is evaluated under the Ryan factors, and competency determinations and evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Spokane, a 4-year-old named Mia is found incompetent to testify in a prosecution for child molestation. Mia separately told a preschool teacher and later a foster parent that Noah Trent made her put her mouth on his "peepee" and that "white milk" came out; an unrelated 5-year-old who had not spoken with Mia independently described the same adult making the same act happen to her. There is no medical evidence.

Under the governing rule, is Mia's hearsay most likely admissible?

Explanation. When the child is unavailable, the court must make separate findings of reliability and corroborative evidence of the act. Corroboration is case specific and may rest on indirect evidence. The majority treated independent, parallel disclosures by very young children and their precocious sexual knowledge as especially strong corroboration, even without medical proof. It also made clear that not every reliability factor must be satisfied and that incompetency does not itself defeat reliability.