Full Opinion

FILED OCTOBER 22, 2026 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 41190-7-III ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) A.S.M.,† ) ) Appellant. ) LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. — A.S.M. appeals his convictions of one count of first degree rape of a child and one count of attempted first degree rape of a child. He contends there is insufficient evidence to support either conviction. We disagree and affirm. STATEMENT OF FACTS1 When K.R. was eight years old, she visited her aunt and uncle’s house to celebrate A.S.M.’s 15th birthday. K.R.’s mother and A.S.M.’s stepfather are brother and sister. At the party, A.S.M. and K.R., along with other cousins, played hide and seek. When the † The appellant and the person subjected to his crimes of conviction are minors; therefore, we use their initials throughout this opinion to protect their privacy. Gen. Ord. for Court of Appeals, In re Changes to Case Title (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2018) (effective September 1, 2018), http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts. 1 Our statement of facts come from trial testimony of what K.R. told others. We write them as a chronological narrative to facilitate the reader’s understanding. We discuss K.R.’s trial testimony in a later section. No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. children finished the game, K.R.’s mother noticed K.R. was abnormally reserved. A.S.M.’s mother also noticed K.R. seemed withdrawn and stayed close to her mother. On the trip home, K.R. told her mother, unprompted, that A.S.M. had touched her “swimsuit parts.”2 8 Rep. of Proc. (RP) (Mar. 17, 2025) at 99-100. Once home, K.R. again told her mother A.S.M. had touched her “bottom area.” 8 RP (Mar. 17, 2025) at 100-01. When K.R.’s mother helped her get ready for bed, she discovered K.R.’s underwear was soiled in multiple places. K.R. told her she had an accident. K.R.’s mother did not believe it looked like an accident nor did K.R. normally mess herself. Later that night, K.R.’s mother relayed K.R.’s account to K.R.’s grandmother. K.R.’s grandmother took the soiled clothing—a dress and underwear—and placed them in a Ziploc bag. The following morning, K.R.’s grandmother asked K.R. to draw a picture of what happened during the birthday party. After K.R. drew the picture, her grandmother asked her to explain the picture. As K.R. explained the picture, her grandmother wrote what K.R. said around the picture. These words were “[p]utting finger in butthole,” “[l]aundry room, [K.R.] on knees,” and “happened in [A.S.M.’s sister’s] closet and [A.S.M.]’s closet.” 8 RP (Mar. 17, 2025) at 141. 2 K.R. referred to her private areas as swimsuit parts. 2 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. The same day, K.R.’s mother and grandmother shared K.R.’s disclosures with A.S.M.’s stepfather. A.S.M.’s stepfather and A.S.M.’s mother spoke to A.S.M. A.S.M. denied touching K.R. Two days after A.S.M.’s birthday party, A.S.M.’s mother reported K.R.’s allegation to law enforcement. K.R.’s mother gave K.R.’s soiled clothing and the picture K.R. drew to law enforcement. Law enforcement sent the clothing to the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory for bodily fluids and DNA testing, along with a sample from A.S.M. K.R.’s forensic interview Three days after the alleged incident, K.R. spoke with Lisa Larrabee, a child forensic interviewer. K.R. told Larrabee that A.S.M. touched her inappropriately in three different locations while the children were playing hide and seek: first in A.S.M.’s sister’s closet, then in A.S.M.’s bedroom, and lastly, in the laundry room. K.R. told Larrabee that when the children began the game, K.R. hid in the closet and A.S.M. joined her. K.R. stated that she was on her hands and knees, and A.S.M. maneuvered himself behind her while kneeling. She said he then lifted her dress and first 3 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. put his finger in her butthole and then touched the middle part of her “pee pee.” 3 9 RP (Mar. 18, 2025) at 416. When he did this, his hand pushed her body, and he pushed her from behind with his stomach. Larrabee asked K.R. what A.S.M.’s hands did to get to her butthole, and K.R. made some motions with her hand. She moved her hand horizontally back and forth with her index finger extended. She also made a quick tapping movement. When Larrabee asked about her “pee pee,” K.R. made a grasping and pulling motion with her hand. When Larrabee asked if A.S.M.’s hand was on her skin or on her underwear, K.R. said it was on her underwear. Larrabee asked what it felt like, K.R. said it felt wrong, that he should not be doing that, and weird. K.R. also said it felt bad. Larrabee asked her if it felt bad on her “pee pee” or if it felt bad on the inside, in her heart. K.R. responded it felt bad inside. To try to get K.R. to expand more on how it felt physically when A.S.M. touched her butthole, Larrabee gave her an example: You know how . . . if someone was to rub me softly here, I would say either something like oh, it felt good or it felt—fine . . . . If someone were to flick me, that would probably be well, that kinda hurt a little bit. So, that’s kinda what I’m trying to understand is what your body part felt like where he was putting his finger when he was pushing with his finger. 3 When Larrabee asked K.R. what these areas were used for, K.R. described their excretory functions. 4 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. 9 RP (Mar. 18, 2025) at 448-49 (emphasis added). K.R. replied it kind of hurt. Larrabee then asked how it felt when he touched her “pee pee,” and K.R. replied it also kind of hurt. When Larrabee asked K.R. to tell her more about how it kind of hurt, K.R. replied it kind of hurt bad. When Larrabee asked what happened to K.R.’s underwear during the incident, K.R. said it remained on but that A.S.M. gently pulled the back of her underwear backward. A.S.M.’s 11-year-old brother found them, and A.S.M. immediately stopped pushing her with his stomach. A.S.M. also apologized to her. Next, K.R. claimed A.S.M. touched her on the same areas while they were hiding behind and underneath a beanbag in A.S.M.’s bedroom. K.R. said it felt like what occurred in the closet. K.R. claimed that the last place A.S.M. touched her was the laundry room. She stated that she and A.S.M. hid in the laundry room twice—once alone and once with A.S.M.’s sister. K.R. initially said that when she and A.S.M. were alone in the laundry room, A.S.M. asked her to crouch down but she left because she believed he was going to touch her again. 5 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. K.R. also claimed, however, that A.S.M.’s sister was present when A.S.M. touched her in the laundry room. She said that when she crouched down, she thought A.S.M. put his hands under her. When Larrabee asked her to explain further, K.R. pointed to the areas A.S.M. touched with his hand and stated that he touched her in the same way as in the closet and bedroom. K.R. said that when he “started to do it,” she left the room. 10 RP (Mar. 19, 2025) at 465. K.R. described A.S.M.’s hand movements as the same as those used in the closet. Larrabee asked what happened to her underwear, and K.R. claimed that nothing happened and it remained on. After Larrabee noted that K.R. had previously said A.S.M. pulled her underwear and asked whether he did so while she was crouching, K.R. testified that he moved it slowly and then slowly put it back. Larrabee asked K.R. about the drawing K.R. made for her grandmother depicting where the events occurred and what happened. K.R. corrected her, explaining that the drawing was not about where she and A.S.M. were, but about what he did. Though K.R. also stated that the room she drew was A.S.M.’s sister’s closet. Larrabee then asked K.R. to draw pictures of the three places she hid, where she and A.S.M. were positioned, and the rooms’ general layout. When K.R. drew the closet, she drew herself on her hands and knees with A.S.M. on his knees. When K.R. drew the 6 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. laundry room, she drew A.S.M.’s sister behind a door and explained that A.S.M. was behind K.R. The State charged A.S.M. with three counts of first degree child rape. A.S.M. elected a bench trial, which took place about a year and one-half after the alleged incidents. K.R.’s testimony The State played the recording of the forensic interview for the court and admitted the three drawings K.R. made during the interview and the drawing she made for her grandmother.4 When K.R. testified, she remembered hiding in two places on A.S.M.’s birthday: A.S.M.’s sister’s closet and the laundry room. K.R. did not remember hiding in A.S.M.’s bedroom. K.R. testified that she hid in A.S.M.’s younger sister’s closet alone, and A.S.M. later joined her. K.R. thought they were standing up in the closet when A.S.M. touched 4 A.S.M. failed to provide this court with the drawings or the video. “The party presenting an issue for review has the burden of providing an adequate record to establish error.” State v. Barry, 183 Wn.2d 297, 317, 352 P.3d 161 (2015). Satisfying this burden most often requires an appellant to provide the entire record when, as here, they assert the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. 7 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. her “[i]n [her] bottom.”5 8 RP (Mar. 17, 2025) at 210. She testified that A.S.M. apologized to her while they were in the closet. When the State asked her how A.S.M. touched her bottom, she replied, “I don’t know.” 8 RP (Mar. 17, 2025) at 210. She testified she could feel him touching her bottom and it felt “uncomfortable,” but she could not describe what she meant by “uncomfortable.” 8 RP (Mar. 17, 2025) at 211. Many of K.R.’s responses to the State’s questions were, “I don’t know.” For example, she responded, “I don’t know” when the State asked her if A.S.M. touched her on the outside or the inside of her bottom, whether she could feel his hand when he touched her, whether she could describe what she felt when he touched her, what she thought was happening, what her body was feeling, and how long she was in the closet with A.S.M. K.R. testified that A.S.M.’s little brother found them in the closet, and they played another round of hide and seek. This time, K.R. testified she hid in the laundry room, and A.S.M. joined her. K.R. testified A.S.M. stood behind her and touched her bottom again. Just as before, K.R. replied, “I don’t know” when the State asked her to explain how A.S.M. touched her, whether his hand was inside or outside her underwear, and what he 5 K.R. equates the term “bottom” with butthole. 8 RP (Mar. 17, 2025) at 226. 8 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. was doing with his hand. However, K.R. was able to say she was still wearing underwear and that A.S.M. touched the top of her bottom. She also testified that she felt disgusted when A.S.M. touched her in the laundry room because it was the second time he did it. The State showed K.R. the picture she drew for her grandmother. K.R. said she “[k]ind of” recognized the drawing but was unsure whether it was her drawing. 8 RP (Mar. 17, 2025) at 221. When the State asked her what she drew and why she drew the picture, K.R. replied, “I don’t know.” 8 RP (Mar. 17, 2025) at 221-22. Washington State Patrol forensic scientist’s testimony The Washington State Patrol forensic scientist explained how DNA can be transferred to clothing. She testified that DNA can be deposited on clothing by any kind of contact, such as wearing or touching it, by bodily fluids, or during laundering. However, she noted that the amount of DNA deposited varies with the duration and friction of contact and that DNA transfer is more likely from bare skin to clothing than from one garment to another. The forensic scientist testified that K.R.’s underwear had brown stains from the interior crotch area to the underwear’s back panel. While law enforcement suspected the stains were feces, the forensic scientist could not confirm their suspicions because the lab did not test fecal matter. 9 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. The forensic scientist tested the inside of K.R.’s underwear for semen and found one strong result on the lower back panel. The scientist looked for sperm cells in the positive area but found none. The forensic scientist decided to perform a differential extraction on the spot. Differential extraction separates potential sperm cells from nonsperm cells, dividing a single sample into two fractions. After separating the sample into a potential sperm cell fraction and a nonsperm cell fraction, the scientist did not test the sperm fraction further because it contained insufficient male DNA. When the scientist tested the nonsperm fraction, she identified four Y-STR DNA profiles,6 including one major profile. Only the major Y-STR DNA profile was suitable for comparisons. That major Y-STR DNA profile matched A.S.M.’s Y-STR profile. The forensic scientist concluded that neither A.S.M. nor his paternal male relatives could be excluded from the major Y-STR DNA profile. A.S.M.’s testimony A.S.M. testified that he did not commit any of the alleged acts. He stated that he hid in his sister’s closet with both his sister and K.R. He testified that he saw his sister’s hands under K.R.’s dress. He explained that his sister, who was three years old at the 6 Y-STR DNA testing identifies male DNA. Y-STR DNA testing results in identifying a unique paternal line. 10 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. time, was exploring body parts, and he pulled her hands away when he saw her actions. He then testified that the three then hid in the laundry room, where his sister again put her hands under K.R.’s dress, and he again pulled her hands away. He further testified that they then hid in his room under the beanbag. The court’s decision The court found A.S.M. guilty of one count of first degree child rape and one count of attempted first degree child rape but concluded the State failed to prove a third count of first degree child rape and dismissed that charge. For the rape conviction, the trial court relied on the acts described in the closet. The court found that despite conflicting testimony, the evidence supporting the charged offense was more credible than the evidence suggesting it did not occur. Specifically, the court found the condition and evidence on the underwear corroborated K.R.’s testimony. For the attempted rape conviction, the trial court relied on the acts K.R. described in the laundry room. The court was not persuaded that penetration occurred. However, the court believed that A.S.M. took a substantial step to commit the crime because the drawings K.R. made were consistent with her testimony, K.R. described A.S.M. pushing her and against her body, and A.S.M.’s paternal line semen DNA found on K.R.’s underwear was consistent with K.R.’s disclosure and testimony. 11 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. A.S.M. appeals. ANALYSIS A.S.M. argues the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain either of his convictions. We first review the applicable standards of review. Due process requires the State to prove each element of a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Chacon, 192 Wn.2d 545, 549, 431 P.3d 477 (2018). We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. State v. Zghair, 4 Wn.3d 610, 619, 567 P.3d 1 (2025). After a bench trial, we will uphold a conviction if, after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Roberts, 5 Wn.3d 222, 231, 572 P.3d 1191 (2025). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant admits the State’s evidence is true and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it. Id. at 237. We draw inferences in the State’s favor. Id. We consider circumstantial evidence and direct evidence equally reliable. Id. We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. Id. at 234. “To the extent issues of conflicting testimony, credibility, and persuasiveness are memorialized in a court’s 12 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. written findings and conclusions, it follows that a reviewing court will defer to those decisions—even when analyzing all of the evidence.” Id. at 235. If the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, we must reverse and remand for dismissal of the charge with prejudice. State v. Rodgers, 146 Wn.2d 55, 60, 43 P.3d 1 (2002). A. Sufficient evidence to sustain first degree child rape conviction A.S.M. argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he committed first degree rape of a child because there was insufficient evidence of penetration. We disagree. “A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four months older than the victim.” RCW 9A.44.073(1). Sexual intercourse “occurs upon any penetration, however slight,” and also means “any penetration of the vagina or anus however slight, by an object, when committed on one person by another.” RCW 9A.44.010(14)(a), (b). The trial court found the disclosures and testimony supporting the charged offense credible. We defer to the fact finder on issues of witness credibility. Roberts, 5 Wn.3d at 234. Furthermore, because A.S.M. raises a sufficiency challenge, he must concede that 13 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. the evidence is true. Id. at 237. We therefore consider whether K.R.’s statements were sufficient to find that A.S.M. penetrated K.R. The morning after the birthday party, K.R. disclosed to her grandmother that A.S.M. had put his finger in her butthole. Two days later, K.R. told Larrabee that A.S.M. put his finger in her butthole when they were in the closet. We can infer K.R. knew what part of the body A.S.M. put his finger in because K.R. described its excretory function. K.R. also demonstrated the motion she said A.S.M. made by extending a finger and moving her hand horizontally back and forth as she described him putting his finger in her butthole. K.R. said it kind of hurt and later expanded and said it hurt kind of bad. Brown stains that appeared to be fecal matter were found on the inside of K.R.’s underwear. K.R.’s mother testified K.R. did not normally mess herself. At trial, K.R. testified A.S.M. touched her in her bottom, which she equates with butthole. Based on these statements, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and drawing reasonable inferences in its favor, we conclude that a reasonable fact finder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that A.S.M. penetrated K.R. A.S.M. first argues K.R.’s statements do not show that he penetrated her because she claimed her underwear stayed on and A.S.M.’s finger was on her underwear. Although K.R. had difficulty describing the events, testing detected DNA consistent with 14 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. A.S.M.’s Y-STR profile7 inside her underwear. This means regardless of K.R.’s belief, we can reasonably infer A.S.M.’s hand was on the inside of her underwear. A.S.M. then cites two cases and presents an analogy and distinction argument. A.S.M. argues his case is not like State v. Biles, 73 Wn. App. 281, 285, 871 P.2d 159 (1994), where the court held that there was sufficient evidence of penetration when the child stated that the defendant “‘touched her pee pee with his pee pee,’” “‘it hurt her,’” and she described his male genitalia. He argues his case is not like Biles because K.R. could not describe A.S.M.’s finger or what it felt like nor could she describe how her body felt physically, only that it felt wrong. A.S.M. acknowledges that K.R. said it kind of hurt but argues that this statement does not establish that she was injured during any penetration. A.S.M. argues her response is suspect because Larrabee’s question asking what her “body part felt like where he was putting his finger when he was pushing with his finger” 8 is unclear about what body part she asked about. A.S.M. also argues it is unclear what body part K.R. said hurt. 7 According to the record, the only other male relative who could have been paternally related to A.S.M. at the party was his younger brother. There is no evidence that A.S.M.’s younger brother had any contact with K.R.’s underwear. 8 9 RP (Mar. 18, 2025) at 449. 15 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. Out of context, Larrabee’s question and K.R.’s response are confusing. However, Larrabee asked that question immediately after she asked how K.R. knew A.S.M.’s finger was in her butthole and what it felt like. In context, it is clear which body part Larrabee was referring to. The evidence is sufficient to determine that K.R. was hurt during penetration. Furthermore, K.R. did describe A.S.M.’s finger, not just in words but when she showed Larrabee the motions his hand made. A.S.M. also argues his case is more like State v. Alexander, 64 Wn. App. 147, 822 P.2d 1250 (1992). In Alexander, the child’s testimony was inconsistent about when the abuse occurred and whether certain incidents had occurred at all. Id. at 158. The Alexander court held that given the extreme inconsistencies about whether the incident occurred at all and the admission of improper bolstering testimony and prosecutorial misconduct, it could not conclude that a rational jury would have reached the same result. Id. A.S.M. argues, like Alexander, K.R.’s trial testimony conflicted with her statements to Larrabee and with other witnesses’ testimony. The facts of this case are distinguishable from Alexander. K.R. told Larrabee that A.S.M., while in the closet, put his finger in her butthole. At trial, she testified A.S.M., while in the closet, touched her “[i]n [her] bottom,” which she equates to butthole. 8 RP (Mar. 17, 2025) at 210 (emphasis added). These statements are consistent. While K.R. 16 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. replied “I don’t know” to several of the State’s questions at trial, this went to K.R.’s credibility, which is the sole province of the trier of fact. We do not review credibility determinations. Furthermore, A.S.M. does not allege the court admitted or heard any inadmissible testimony that bolstered K.R.’s disclosures. Lastly, A.S.M. argues the DNA found on K.R.’s underwear was not sufficient to prove penetration occurred. A.S.M. is correct. The Y-STR DNA found on the inside of K.R.’s underwear alone is not enough to confirm penetration occurred. However, that Y- STR DNA matching A.S.M.’s DNA profile was found on the inside of her underwear near her privates is enough to corroborate K.R.’s disclosures. The trial court found this evidence persuasive. We defer to the trier of fact on the persuasiveness of the evidence. Roberts, 5 Wn.3d at 234. We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain A.S.M.’s conviction of first degree rape of a child. B. Sufficient evidence to sustain attempted first degree child rape conviction A.S.M. argues the evidence was insufficient to support his attempted first degree child rape conviction. He relies on finding of fact 4 in the trial court’s written findings and contends that the evidence the court cited did not establish either an intent to engage in sexual intercourse or a substantial step toward that offense. We disagree. 17 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. Zghair, 4 Wn.3d at 619. Our Supreme Court has recently held that the standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is the same whether the fact finder was a jury or the trial court. Roberts, 5 Wn.3d at 247. Roberts rejected earlier suggestions that, after a bench trial, appellate courts should limit sufficiency review to the trial court’s specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. at 234. Therefore, even in bench trials, we evaluate all the evidence before the trial court. Id. at 225. To prove attempted first degree rape of a child, the State must show that the defendant intended to have sexual intercourse with a child and took a substantial step toward doing so. RCW 9A.28.020(1); RCW 9A.44.073(1). Criminal intent may be inferred from conduct, and circumstantial evidence is as reliable as direct evidence. State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d 179, 201, 86 P.3d 139 (2004). “A substantial step is an act that is ‘strongly corroborative’ of the actor’s criminal purpose.” State v. Johnson, 173 Wn.2d 895, 899, 270 P.3d 591 (2012) (quoting State v. Luther, 157 Wn.2d 63, 78, 134 P.3d 205 (2006)). By focusing on whether the evidence supports finding of fact 4, A.S.M. makes his argument under a standard Roberts rejected. Although the State merely repeated the trial court’s findings to rebut A.S.M.’s argument, we do not restrict ourselves to answering 18 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. whether the evidence supports the trial court’s findings; rather, we analyze the evidence as a whole. Properly construed in favor of the State, there was sufficient evidence, when considered as a whole, to support A.S.M.’s attempted first degree child rape conviction. During the forensic interview, K.R. said that A.S.M. asked her to crouch down in the laundry room and that she thought he put his hands under her. She said he began touching her in the same areas as in the closet, but she walked away when he started. At trial, K.R testified that she and A.S.M. were standing in the laundry room when he touched the top of her bottom. We can infer sexual intent to have intercourse from conduct. Varga, 151 Wn.2d at 201. There is sufficient evidence that A.S.M. penetrated K.R. in the closet. During the forensic interview, K.R. stated A.S.M. started to touch her in the same areas as in the closet. His similar actions in the laundry room show his intent to do so again. This conduct also supports a finding that A.S.M. took a substantial step because it corroborates his intent. Admitting the truth of this evidence and interpreting all reasonable inferences most strongly against A.S.M., a reasonable fact finder could find each element of attempted first degree child rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary inferences may be 19 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. possible, but we defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, witness credibility, and the persuasiveness of evidence. Roberts, 5 Wn.3d at 234. A.S.M. first contends the court improperly relied on K.R.’s drawings because they were inconsistent with her testimony and with each other. We are unsure exactly what K.R. depicted in her drawings because the drawings were not included in the appellate record. The trial transcript contained some description of the drawings but not enough to confirm A.S.M.’s assertions. Moreover, we defer to the trial court’s conclusion concerning their persuasiveness. Id. A.S.M. argues the trial court erred by finding him guilty of attempted first degree rape of a child because the evidence the trial court relied on did not establish he intended to have sexual intercourse or that he completed a substantial step. A.S.M. asserts the trial court erroneously relied on certain evidence to support the attempt conviction. We agree. The court was mistaken when it used K.R.’s statements about A.S.M. pushing her and against her body to prove A.S.M. attempted to rape K.R. in the laundry room. K.R. made these statements when she spoke about what occurred in the closet. There is no evidence A.S.M. also made these movements in the laundry room. However, as discussed above, there is sufficient evidence regardless of this error. 20 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. Lastly, A.S.M. argues the trial court improperly relied on evidence that his semen—or, at minimum, Y-STR DNA consistent with his paternal line—was found on K.R.’s underwear. He contends that the forensic scientist testified that the DNA obtained from the semen was not suitable for comparison. The record does not support that claim. The forensic scientist testified that the sperm fraction from the semen-positive stain was not suitable for comparison but that the nonsperm fraction from the same stain produced a Y-STR profile that matched A.S.M.’s. A.S.M. also argues the DNA on the underwear does not prove that penetration or attempt occurred because DNA can be transferred to clothing in many ways. A.S.M. is correct. In isolation, Y-STR DNA matching A.S.M.’s profile found on the inside of K.R.’s underwear near her private areas does not prove attempt or penetration occurred. But it does provide independent evidence that supports K.R.’s disclosures. The trial court found this persuasive, and we defer to the finder of fact on the persuasiveness of the evidence. Id. We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain A.S.M.’s convictions for the crimes of first degree rape of a child and attempted first degree child rape. 21 No. 41190-7-III State v. A.S.M. 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. _________________________________ Lawrence-Berrey, J. WE CONCUR: ______________________________ _________________________________ Staab, C.J. Hill, J. 22