S-3519 _______________________________________________
SENATE BILL NO. 6587
_______________________________________________
State of Washington 51st Legislature 1990 Regular Session
By Senators Nelson and McDonald
Read first time 1/17/90 and referred to Committee on Law & Justice.
AN ACT Relating to sexual exploitation of children; amending RCW 9.68A.110; and repealing RCW 9.68A.140, 9.68A.150, and 9.68A.160.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. Section 10, chapter 262, Laws of 1984 as last amended by section 9, chapter 32, Laws of 1989 and RCW 9.68A.110 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) In a
prosecution under RCW 9.68A.040, it is not a defense that the defendant was
involved in activities of law enforcement and prosecution agencies in the
investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses. Law enforcement and
prosecution agencies shall not employ minors to aid in the investigation of a
violation of RCW 9.68A.090 or 9.68A.100. ((This chapter does not apply to
individual case treatment in a recognized medical facility or individual case
treatment by a psychiatrist or psychologist licensed under Title 18 RCW, or to
lawful conduct between spouses.))
(2) In a
prosecution under RCW 9.68A.050, 9.68A.060, 9.68A.070, or 9.68A.080, it is not
a defense that the defendant did not know the age of the child depicted in the
visual or printed matter: PROVIDED, That it is a defense, which the defendant
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that at the time of the offense
the defendant ((was not in possession of any facts on the basis of which he
or she should reasonably have known that the person depicted was a minor)) made
a reasonable bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of the minor by
requiring production of a driver's license, marriage license, birth
certificate, or other governmental or educational identification card or paper
and did not rely solely on the oral allegations or apparent age of the minor.
(3) In a
prosecution under RCW 9.68A.040((, 9.68A.050, 9.68A.060,)) or 9.68A.090,
it is not a defense that the defendant did not know the alleged victim's age:
PROVIDED, That it is a defense, which the defendant must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence, that at the time of the offense, the defendant
((reasonably believed the alleged victim to be at least eighteen years of
age based on declarations by the alleged victim)) made a reasonable bona
fide attempt to ascertain the true age of the minor by requiring production of
a driver's license, marriage license, birth certificate, or other governmental
or educational identification card or paper and did not rely solely on the oral
allegations or apparent age of the minor.
(4) In a prosecution under RCW 9.68A.050, 9.68A.060, or 9.68A.070, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant was a law enforcement officer in the process of conducting an official investigation of a sex-related crime against a minor, or that the defendant was providing individual case treatment as a recognized medical facility or as a psychiatrist or psychologist licensed under Title 18 RCW.
(5) In a prosecution under RCW 9.68A.050, 9.68A.060, or 9.68A.070, the state is not required to establish the identity of the alleged victim.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed:
(1) Section 1, chapter 396, Laws of 1987 and RCW 9.68A.140;
(2) Section 2, chapter 396, Laws of 1987 and RCW 9.68A.150; and