## Facts

- Matthew J. Hirschfelder was a choir teacher at Hoquiam High School.
- Several days before a student’s 2006 graduation, Hirschfelder (age 33) had sexual intercourse in his office with A.N.T., a registered student (age 18).
- The school district permitted students to remain enrolled up to age 21.
- The State charged Hirschfelder with first degree sexual misconduct with a minor under former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) (2005), which criminalized sexual intercourse by a school employee with a registered student who is at least 16, at least 60 months younger than the employee, and not married to the employee.
- Hirschfelder moved to dismiss pretrial, arguing the statute did not apply because the student was 18, and alternatively that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and violated equal protection.

## Issues

1. Whether “minor” in former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) limits the statute to student victims under age 18, excluding an 18-year-old registered student.
2. Whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague due to the terms “minor” and “registered student of the school.”
3. Whether the statute violates equal protection by targeting school employees’ sexual conduct with registered students while not criminalizing similar conduct by other adults.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.
- The court held former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) applies to sexual intercourse between a school employee and any registered student who is at least 16 and at least 60 months younger than the employee, regardless of whether the student is 18 or older.
- The court held the statute is not void for vagueness because it provides fair notice and objective enforcement standards.
- The court held the statute does not violate equal protection under rational basis review because the classification of school employees and registered students is rationally related to protecting students from sexual exploitation by persons in authority.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- When statutory elements define the protected class by objective criteria (e.g., registered student status, minimum age, and age differential), a crime label or title term (such as “minor”) does not necessarily add an unstated age-under-18 limitation.
- A statute is not unconstitutionally vague if, read as a whole, it gives persons of ordinary intelligence notice of prohibited conduct and provides standards that constrain arbitrary enforcement.
- Under rational basis review, the legislature may single out school employees for criminal liability regarding sexual contact with registered students based on the authority relationship and the state interest in preventing exploitation, even when the student is an adult.

## Conclusion

The court construed former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) to criminalize sexual intercourse between a school employee and a registered student age 16 or older who is at least 60 months younger, including students who have reached age 18, and upheld the statute against vagueness and equal protection challenges.


State v. Hirschfelder, 170 Wash. 2d 536, 242 P.3d 876 (Wash. 2010)