Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of Washington v. Veniamin Nicolay Gaidaichuk
Date: 07-19-2025
Case Number: 40231-2-III
Judge: Not Available
Court: Superior Court, Yakima County, Washington
Plaintiff's Attorney: Yakima County Washington Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Yakima Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory
Description:
Yakima, Washington criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with r second degree attempted rape of a child and communicating with a minor for immoral purposes.
On November 17, 2019, Gaidaichuk traveled from Bellevue to Yakima to meet with someone named "Anna" at a designated address. Anna had informed him on several prior occasions that she was thirteen years old. While Gaidaichuk was on his way, he requested a phone call and spoke with Anna about sex. When Gaidaichuk arrived at the designated address, he was greeted by an undercover police officer who was posing as Anna's friend. A few moments later, Gaidaichuk entered the home. He was charged with second degree attempted rape of a child and communicating with a minor for immoral purposes.
The case proceeded to trial. Gaidaichuk testified that he did not believe the person he was communicating with was 13 years old. During closing argument, the prosecutor explained that the basis for the communication charge was the text messages from July to November, whereas the rape charge was based on Gaidaichuk's act of driving to Yakima and entering the home with the intent to engage in sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old female. At the close of evidence, jury instruction 3 stated that "[a] separate crime is charged in each count. You must decide each count separately. Your verdict on one count should not control your verdict on the other count." Clerk's Papers at 43. The jury found Gaidaichuk guilty as charged.
* * *
Legal issue Is a permissive jury instruction language sufficient to challenge a verdict based on claims of double jeopardy and manifest constitutional error?
Headnote
CRIMINAL LAW. JURY INSTRUCTIONS. The appellant challenged the jury instruction for supposedly being permissive rather than mandatory, arguing it could suggest to jurors that the verdict on one count could influence the other, but the court found the challenge was not preserved, was not manifest, and did not constitute a constitutional error.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. DOUBLE JEOPARDY. The appellant claimed a jury instruction implicated double jeopardy by allowing a conviction on both counts without sufficient evidence, but the court determined the claim did not meet the constitutional error threshold as the charges concerned distinct acts.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT. The appellant asserted that the police conduct was so outrageous it violated due process principles; however, the court found no evidence of government misconduct that met the established criteria for an outrageous conduct defense.
Key Phrases Second degree attempted rape. Communicating with a minor. Manifest constitutional error. Double jeopardy. Outrageous government conduct.
On November 17, 2019, Gaidaichuk traveled from Bellevue to Yakima to meet with someone named "Anna" at a designated address. Anna had informed him on several prior occasions that she was thirteen years old. While Gaidaichuk was on his way, he requested a phone call and spoke with Anna about sex. When Gaidaichuk arrived at the designated address, he was greeted by an undercover police officer who was posing as Anna's friend. A few moments later, Gaidaichuk entered the home. He was charged with second degree attempted rape of a child and communicating with a minor for immoral purposes.
The case proceeded to trial. Gaidaichuk testified that he did not believe the person he was communicating with was 13 years old. During closing argument, the prosecutor explained that the basis for the communication charge was the text messages from July to November, whereas the rape charge was based on Gaidaichuk's act of driving to Yakima and entering the home with the intent to engage in sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old female. At the close of evidence, jury instruction 3 stated that "[a] separate crime is charged in each count. You must decide each count separately. Your verdict on one count should not control your verdict on the other count." Clerk's Papers at 43. The jury found Gaidaichuk guilty as charged.
* * *
Legal issue Is a permissive jury instruction language sufficient to challenge a verdict based on claims of double jeopardy and manifest constitutional error?
Headnote
CRIMINAL LAW. JURY INSTRUCTIONS. The appellant challenged the jury instruction for supposedly being permissive rather than mandatory, arguing it could suggest to jurors that the verdict on one count could influence the other, but the court found the challenge was not preserved, was not manifest, and did not constitute a constitutional error.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. DOUBLE JEOPARDY. The appellant claimed a jury instruction implicated double jeopardy by allowing a conviction on both counts without sufficient evidence, but the court determined the claim did not meet the constitutional error threshold as the charges concerned distinct acts.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT. The appellant asserted that the police conduct was so outrageous it violated due process principles; however, the court found no evidence of government misconduct that met the established criteria for an outrageous conduct defense.
Key Phrases Second degree attempted rape. Communicating with a minor. Manifest constitutional error. Double jeopardy. Outrageous government conduct.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of Washington v. Veniamin Nicolay Gaidaichuk?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard State of Washington v. Veniamin Nicolay Gaidaichuk?
This case was heard in Superior Court, Yakima County, Washington, WA. The presiding judge was Not Available.
Who were the attorneys in State of Washington v. Veniamin Nicolay Gaidaichuk?
Plaintiff's attorney: Yakima County Washington Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Yakima Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory.
When was State of Washington v. Veniamin Nicolay Gaidaichuk decided?
This case was decided on July 19, 2025.