Prosecutors Seek to Overturn Barnhart Ruling Dismissing Rape Charge Against Former Sequim Officer

Prosecutors have appealed Clallam County Superior Court Judge Simon Barnhart’s dismissal of the second-degree rape charge against former Sequim police officer Christian Whitaker, taking their effort to restore the charge to Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals.

The notice of appeal filed Oct. 22, seeks review of both Barnhart’s Oct. 5 dismissal and his Oct. 16 denial of reconsideration.

Before filing the appeal, Ashcraft argued that Barnhart had evaluated the evidence contrary to the legal standard requiring him to view it in the prosecution’s favor. 

Barnhart denied that request in a one-page order that offered no additional analysis.

The dismissal applied only to the rape count. Separate charges of first-degree voyeurism and disclosing intimate images remain. Whitaker pleaded not guilty to all three charges.

The case concerns an alleged July 1, 2024, incident at Whitaker’s home near Sequim, while he was employed by the city’s police department. The rape charge alleged that the woman was incapable of consenting because she was mentally incapacitated or physically helpless.

The dispute over the evidence

Barnhart dismissed the charge under Washington’s corpus delicti rule, which requires evidence independent of a defendant’s out-of-court statements supporting an inference that the charged crime occurred.

The independent evidence need not be enough to convict. But, as Barnhart explained in his order, it must support a logical and reasonable inference of the charged crime and be inconsistent with an innocent explanation. Courts must consider that evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

Ashcraft’s Oct. 15 reconsideration motion argued that Barnhart had failed to apply that standard to the evidence as a whole.

“The Court’s evaluation of the individual pieces of evidence was contrary to law and those errors accumulated into a holding that was also contrary to law,” Ashcraft wrote.

Ashcraft also challenged Barnhart’s interpretation of a photograph and a video sent to Whitaker’s friend that evening.

According to the records discussed in the dismissal order, the photograph was sent at 8:57 p.m. and the video, showing oral sex, was sent at 9:01 p.m. Prosecutors described the woman as apparently unconscious in the photograph. Barnhart found that interpretation speculative.

In seeking reconsideration, Ashcraft argued that the four-minute interval, considered alongside the woman’s account and her prolonged illness, did not support a conclusion that she had regained the capacity to consent. He contended that the video had to be considered with the surrounding evidence, including her reported refusal before her memory went blank.

Why Barnhart dismissed the charge

Barnhart considered separately the two sexual encounters Whitaker described to investigators: oral sex recorded on video and intercourse in a bedroom.

Both sides agreed that the judge could consider the video in deciding the dismissal motion. Barnhart found that it established oral sex, which falls within the statutory definition of sexual intercourse. The remaining question was whether independent evidence supported an inference that the woman lacked the capacity to consent at the time.

Barnhart wrote that she did not appear in the video to be a “passive, unwilling or unaware participant,” or to be mentally incapacitated or physically helpless under the standards governing the charge.

He also found the earlier photograph inconclusive. The image available to the court was small and low-resolution, and prosecutors said a better version was unavailable. Barnhart wrote that he could not clearly determine whether the woman’s eyes were open or closed and that her position could indicate either sleep or relaxation.

His order acknowledged that apparent agreement does not excuse intercourse with someone shown to be mentally incapacitated. But he found that the evidence, taken as a whole, could support an inference of impairment without establishing the required inference of mental incapacity or physical helplessness.

For the reported bedroom encounter, Barnhart found insufficient evidence independent of Whitaker’s statements to establish that intercourse occurred. He cited the woman’s uncertainty about what happened and found that her descriptions of substances she thought might be condom lubricant or semen did not provide sufficient corroboration. He also cited preliminary screening that found no male DNA on several swabs collected during a sexual-assault examination.

Barnhart dismissed the rape count with prejudice. When prosecutors asked him to revisit that decision, his Oct. 16 order stated simply: “Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.”

November trial date removed

At an Oct. 23 status hearing, Ashcraft and defense attorney Karen Unger discussed the appeal and Unger’s pending motions. The parties agreed that the state needed to seek a stay to keep the charges together. They also agreed to remove the trial date and schedule arguments on the defense motions.

Judge Barnhart granted the defense request to strike the trial and set the next hearing for Nov. 18 at 9 a.m.

The trial had been scheduled to begin Nov. 2 after Barnhart granted a defense continuance in July over the prosecution’s objection.

As The Olympic Herald previously reported, Whitaker was placed on administrative leave in July 2024 with his police powers revoked. He resigned from the Sequim Police Department in August 2025, shortly after charges were filed.