Judge Dismisses Rape Charge Against Former Sequim Officer
Clallam County Superior Court Judge Simon Barnhart ruled Monday that prosecutors failed to meet the burden of proof required to proceed with a second-degree rape charge against former Sequim police officer Christian Whitaker. The dismissal, issued with prejudice, applies solely to the rape count, leaving two other charges—first-degree voyeurism and intentional disclosure of intimate images—still active in the case.
Whitaker entered a not guilty plea to all three counts in the indictment. The underlying incident occurred on July 1, 2024, at his residence outside Sequim, while he was serving with the city’s police department. Prosecutors alleged the woman involved was unable to consent due to mental impairment or physical inability to respond.
At a September 22 hearing, defense attorney Karen Unger contended the rape charge lacked the necessary corroborating evidence under Washington’s corpus delicti doctrine. As Judge Barnhart outlined, this rule mandates that, beyond the defendant’s own statements, prosecutors present independent factual support allowing a reasonable inference that the crime occurred. This evidence need not be conclusive but must contradict a plausible scenario in which no crime took place.
The prosecution, led by special deputy prosecutor Chris Ashcraft, countered that multiple forms of evidence collectively substantiated the rape charge. These included video and photographic documentation, the alleged victim’s account, and observable physical indicators.
According to court filings submitted in mid-September, the woman described consuming two shots of vodka during the gathering, expressing her intent to head home before losing recollection of events until the following morning. She reported unexplained bruising, episodes of incontinence, and awakening with vomit in her hair and on her face.
Prosecutors highlighted a photograph timestamped 8:57 p.m., depicting the woman in what appeared to be a state of reduced awareness, followed by a video sent just four minutes later that captured oral contact. A subsequent image showed her resting in bed surrounded by vomit, reinforcing the timeline and context of the incident.
Ashcraft emphasized that, taken collectively and in a light most favorable to the state, the evidence sufficed to sustain the rape charge through trial.
Both parties consented to Judge Barnhart’s inclusion of the video in his evaluation. The judge concluded the footage clearly depicted oral sex, an act legally recognized under Washington’s definition of sexual intercourse.
The central issue, however, centered on whether the independent evidence demonstrated that the woman was mentally incapacitated or physically helpless during the encounter. The court order defines mental incapacity as a condition impairing a person’s grasp of the act’s nature or implications, while physical helplessness encompasses states of unconsciousness or inability to signal refusal.
Judge Barnhart observed that consent expressed verbally or through action does not override the requirement for capacity, particularly when a person is deemed mentally impaired. He determined that the available evidence did not meet the threshold to support such a finding.
In particular, he pointed to a photograph used by prosecutors as key evidence. The image before the court measures approximately 1.5 inches square and features low resolution; a higher-resolution variant was not obtainable, limiting the depth of analysis.
Judge Barnhart noted that visual observations of the woman during the incident left it uncertain whether her eyes remained open or closed, and her posture suggested either rest or light sleep. He observed that the prosecution’s description of her as seemingly unconscious amounted to an interpretation rather than a definitive finding.
In reviewing the recorded footage, the judge concluded that the woman’s conduct met the legal criteria for capacity and physical ability, rather than indicating mental or physical helplessness during the encounter.
He emphasized that while the record supports the view that she experienced some level of impairment—particularly during oral activity—it does not conclusively establish the degree of incapacity required for the charge.
On the matter of the bedroom interaction, Barnhart pointed to a lack of corroborating evidence apart from Whitaker’s own account. He referenced the woman’s own admissions to investigators, including her uncertainty about whether sexual contact occurred and her difficulty recalling specifics.
Her references to substances she observed, such as a lubricant-like or semen-like residue, were deemed too general to substantiate Whitaker’s version of events.
Two additional counts focus on Whitaker’s decision to film the woman without her permission and to forward the footage to a third party. Court documents show he admitted she did not provide consent for either the recording or its sharing.
These aspects of the case remain pending, as Monday’s ruling addressed only the core charges tied to the encounter itself.
Earlier reporting indicated Whitaker had been placed on administrative leave in July 2024, during which his law enforcement authority was suspended. He formally stepped down from his position in August 2025, shortly after the charges were filed.
In July, Judge Barnhart adjusted the trial calendar, shifting the start date from September 14 to November 2 to allow the defense more time for case preparation—a change the prosecution had opposed. A procedural check-in is set for this Friday at 9:00 a.m.