” and therefore “ ‘a pertinent character trait is one that tends to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable.’ ” City of Kennewick v. Day, 142 Wn.2d 1, 6, 11 P.3d 304 (2000) (quoting State v. Eakins, 127 Wn.2d 490, 495-96, 902 P.2d 1236 (1995)). ¶22 Here, the defense called witnesses who testified to Perez-Valdez’s reputation for good moral character. Though the State did not object at the time the testimony was offered, it later correctly argued that a general reputation for good character is not pertinent under ER 404(a)(1) to a specific element of the charged crime, rape of a child. See State v. Griswold, 98 Wn. App. 817, 829, 991 P.2d 657 (2000), abrogated on other grounds by State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11, 74 P.3d 119 (2003); cf. Day, 142 Wn.2d at 15 (<HOLDING>). The trial court did not strike the good moral
holding that postapprendi drug quantity is an element of the offense to be proven to jury holding evidence of plastic jeweler bags together with drug ledger amount of drugs and lack of paraphernalia to consume drugs was sufficient to support jurys finding of intent to distribute and absence of money and digital scales was not outcome determinative in light of other evidence recognizing the absence of drug paraphernalia suggestive of personal use as evidence of an intent to distribute holding that a reputation for sobriety from drugs and alcohol is pertinent to the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia because intent to use is an element of the offense holding that when the indictment charges that a certain minimum quantity of drugs is involved in the offense proof of that quantity is a fourth element of the offense