MUNSON, J.

Thomas E. Maupin was convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder and sentenced to an exceptional term of 480 months. The underlying felonies charged were second degree kidnapping, first degree rape or attempted rape.

Mr. Maupin appeals, contending (1) evidence was insufficient to support a felony murder conviction predicated on rape or attempted rape; (2) his motion for change of venue should have been granted; (3) identification testimony based upon a detective's use of a single photograph shown to a witness should have been excluded; and (4) the exceptional sentence was unjustified. We reverse and remand, finding the first issue dispositive. Issues two and three are addressed because they may be raised on remand; issue four is not addressed because it is moot in light of the reversal.

On January 25, 1988, the Spokane Police Department received a call that Tricna Dawn Cloy, the 6-year-old daughter of Christine Fraijo, had disappeared during the night from the family home at 319 South Ralph in Spokane. The previous evening, Ms. Fraijo, accompanied by Tricna and her 4-year-old son Elston, attended a birthday party at the home of a neighbor. Mr. Maupin was also a guest at the party. He conversed with Ms. Fraijo, commenting that her children were pretty and needed a father. At approximately 11 p.m., Mr. Maupin walked the Fraijo family back to their home, accompanied Elston to his room upstairs and put him to bed while Ms. Fraijo put Tricna to bed on the main floor. When Ms. Fraijo refused to allow Mr. Maupin to spend the night, he returned to the party for a short time then left for his apartment at the Western Motel with the motel manager, Richard French.

After Mr. Maupin's departure, Ms. Fraijo locked her door and went to bed. She was disturbed three times during the night, but failed to arouse sufficiently to notice anything was wrong. In the morning, she noticed her door had been forced open, a picture had fallen off the wall and broken, telephone cords were disconnected and her daughter was missing. Police were called.

After an initial investigation at the Fraijo residence, the police went to the Western Motel to contact Mr. Maupin as well as several other guests who had attended the party. The police questioned Mr. Maupin, who resided there with his sister and invalid mother, and a cursory search of his apartment was made. They found no evidence.

During the evening of January 26, 1988, while police watched the motel, Mr. Maupin went to the manager's apartment to inquire about a back door exit. After being told there was none, Mr. Maupin attempted to evade police by using the front door and running through the parking lot. He was apprehended, taken to the police station for questioning, was photographed and released. He returned to the Western Motel. The photographs were later shown to a witness who identified Mr. Maupin as having been present in the neighborhood twice during the night of the abduction.

Later that night, Mr. Maupin persuaded Mr. French, the motel manager, to drive him to Idaho, ostensibly to secure employment. The possible job never materialized. Mr. French returned to Spokane just before daylight, leaving Mr. Maupin in Coeur d'Alene.

The police searched Mr. Maupin's apartment on January 28, and found a note which stated:

I met me a good little woman. She's down right pretty. I call her Mud Flap[] for short. Her momma has brain damage, she says she gets cold chills before I even get to the house. What the hell. I got a spare Mudflap if she braks [ sic] off.

On February 25, Spokane police served Mr. Maupin, who was then incarcerated in the county jail in Birmingham, Alabama, with an arrest warrant for indecent liberties based on an unrelated incident in Spokane County. When questioned about Tricna Cloy, he stated, "You are talking about my life here". Mr. Maupin stood trial in Spokane on the indecent liberties charge and was acquitted. After his acquittal, he again left the area.

Tricna Cloy's body was found in a gravel pit near her home on June 9, 1988. The police recovered the child's skull, lower jaw, several small bones, and clumps of hair including one with a purple clip. A forensic odontologist identified the remains. The burial site was located 333 feet from the location of the skull. The police also located a faded blue nightgown which covered part of the rib cage and an orange snowsuit which was covered with branches. The branches were piled 6 feet high and appeared to have been broken sometime prior to their discovery. The snowsuit was open and showed marked soiling from body deterioration in the upper portion. No bones of the lower extremities were found in the snowsuit. Another piece of the nightgown and other bones were found scattered in the area. Although evidence indicated the child routinely wore underwear to bed, none was found. Investigating officers also found two camps at the gravel pit. Cans and cigarette butts were checked for fingerprints but none were found.

The remains were submitted to a forensic pathologist who testified the cause of death was homicide. However, he was unable to determine the modality, the place, or the time of death. A forensic scientist was unable to detect the presence of semen nor did he find any foreign human hairs or fibers. In February 1989, Mr. Maupin waived extradition from Ohio in order to stand trial in Spokane County on the charge of felony murder predicated on the underlying crimes of kidnapping and/or rape.

[1, 2] The dispositive issue is whether there was sufficient evidence of first degree rape or attempted rape to support the felony murder conviction on that basis. Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction only if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221-22, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). A felony murder conviction must be supported by sufficient evidence of each element of the predicate felony. Green, at 224; State v. Quillin, 49 Wn. App. 155, 164, 741 P.2d 589 (1987) (citing State v. Gamboa, 38 Wn. App. 409, 412, 415, 685 P.2d 643 (1984)), review denied, 109 Wn.2d 1027 (1988).

The jury was instructed that to convict Mr. Maupin of the first degree murder, it must unanimously find him guilty of murder committed in the course of, in furtherance of, or in flight from the commission or attempted commission of kidnapping or rape. The jury was also instructed on the elements of first degree rape based on RCW 9A.44.040. No instruction defining the term "sexual intercourse" was given.

There is no evidence in the record of sexual intercourse. Rather, the record discloses only that Mr. Maupin displayed a sexual interest in Ms. Fraijo. As to the child, Mr. Maupin merely commented the child was "pretty" and "needed a father". The other evidence, panties missing from the body when it was found, a tear in the child's nightgown, the fact the lower half of the child's body was not covered by the snowsuit, and the content of the "Mudflap" note, at most suggests the possibility of some unspecified sex offense. The experts were unable to confirm sexual intercourse had occurred because of the condition of the body. Absent evidence of sexual intercourse, as that term is defined by statute, or a substantial step toward an overt act of sexual intercourse, rape or attempted rape has not been proven. The court erred in instructing the jury on the issue of rape.

[3] If one of the alternative methods upon which a charge is based fails, the verdict must be set aside unless the court can ascertain that it was based on remaining grounds for which sufficient evidence was presented. Green, at 230; State v. Gillespie, 41 Wn. App. 640, 645, 705 P.2d 808 (1985), review denied, 106 Wn.2d 1006 (1986). Here, the trial court declined to provide the jury with a special verdict form which would have shown which of the underlying felonies the jury relied upon in reaching its verdict. There is no way for this court to know whether the jury based its verdict on a unanimous determination Mr. Maupin committed second degree kidnapping.

The State contends the evidence is overwhelming the child was kidnapped prior to the rape; therefore, any juror who convicted Mr. Maupin of felony murder predicated on rape, or attempted rape, must have, by necessity, also found him guilty of felony murder based upon second degree kidnapping. Although there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a verdict based on kidnapping as the predicate felony, whether the kidnapping element was proved beyond a reasonable doubt is a jury question which cannot be resolved by this court. See Green, at 234. The harmless error analysis, relied upon by the dissent, is inapplicable. Thus, in view of the insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction predicated on the rape charge, we remand for a new trial on the charge of first degree felony murder based on kidnapping.

Having determined the conviction must be reversed, we address two issues which may be raised on remand.

[4-6] First, Mr. Maupin contends the court erred in denying his motion for change of venue. The decision to grant or deny a motion for change of venue is within the discretion of the court. State v. Rupe, 108 Wn.2d 734, 750, 743 P.2d 210 (1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 (1988) ( Rupe II). The motion should be granted when necessary to insure the defendant's due process guaranty of a fair and impartial trial. The defendant need show only a probability of unfairness or prejudice. Rupe II, at 750. Certain factors should be considered to determine whether the court has abused its discretion:

(1) the inflammatory or noninflammatory nature of the publicity; (2) the degree to which the publicity was circulated throughout the community; (3) the length of time elapsed from the dissemination of the publicity to the date of trial; (4) the care exercised and the difficulty encountered in the selection of the jury; (5) the familiarity of prospective or trial jurors with the publicity and the resultant effect upon them; (6) the challenges exercised by the defendant in selecting the jury, both peremptory and for cause; (7) the connection of government officials with the release of publicity; (8) the severity of the charge; and (9) the size of the area from which the venire is drawn.

State v. Crudup, 11 Wn. App. 583, 587, 524 P.2d 479, review denied, 84 Wn.2d 1012 (1974). Widespread publicity of a factual, noninflammatory nature will not justify a change of venue. State v. Rupe, 101 Wn.2d 664, 675, 683 P.2d 571 (1984) ( Rupe I).

[7] This court has reviewed the publicity and determined it was of a factual, noninflammatory nature. The articles described the crime, the investigation, the victim, and the support offered to the victim's family by the community. Out of the numerous articles, there were few prejudicial statements. The jury was picked from a large community approximately 2 years after the event. The court allowed a lengthy and exhaustive individual voir dire of potential jurors. Though most of the jurors had some knowledge of the event, they indicated they would be able to separate their knowledge from facts proven at trial. The jury of 14 was selected from the initial panel of 24. Mr. Maupin used only three peremptory challenges and thus, presumably, had no objection to the impartiality of the jury. See Rupe I, at 675. Balancing these factors, it does not appear the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue. There was no error.

Second, Mr. Maupin contends the identification made by witness Todd Grendahl should be suppressed because his identification was based upon a single photograph shown to him by police. Mr. Grendahl, a neighbor of Ms. Fraijo, testified he observed a man sitting on the Fraijo porch during the middle of the night the child disappeared. He described him as 5 foot 8 inches, 160 pounds, and wearing a green jumpsuit. Mr. Grendahl saw him again at 3 a.m. when he returned to his home. The man passed him on the street; Mr. Grendahl attempted to speak to him, but the man said nothing and continued down the street. Two days later, the police showed him only Mr. Maupin's photograph and Mr. Grendahl identified him as the man he had observed. Mr. Grendahl admitted during cross examination he was initially confused as to the man's race, whether black or white. Mrs. French testified Mr. Maupin possessed a green jumpsuit.

[8-10] The presentation of a single photograph is, as a matter of law, impermissibly suggestive. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 116, 53 L.Ed.2d 140, 97 S.Ct. 2243 (1977); State v. Hendrix, 50 Wn. App. 510, 513, 749 P.2d 210 (citing Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 88 S.Ct. 967 (1968)), review denied, 110 Wn.2d 1029 (1988). However, impermissible suggestiveness may not constitute a violation of due process. State v. McDonald, 40 Wn. App. 743, 746, 700 P.2d 327 (1985). Rather, this court must review the totality of the circumstances to determine whether that suggestiveness created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. State v. Taylor, 50 Wn. App. 481, 485, 749 P.2d 181 (1988) (citing State v. Traweek, 43 Wn. App. 99, 103, 715 P.2d 1148, review denied, 106 Wn.2d 1007 (1986)); McDonald, at 746. To determine reliability, the factors set out in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114, must be considered:

the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation.

See also Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 34 L.Ed.2d 401, 93 S.Ct. 375 (1972).

Here, Mr. Grendahl observed Mr. Maupin on two different occasions the night the child disappeared. During the second opportunity, Mr. Maupin passed directly by him and Mr. Grendahl attempted to speak with him. He gave an accurate description to the police prior to being shown the photograph, including height, weight, color and type of hair and manner of dress. He was uncertain of the man's race. He was certain of his identification when he viewed the photograph only 2 days after his confrontation with Mr. Maupin. He also unhesitatingly identified Mr. Maupin in court and was available for cross examination on his identification. Finally, Mr. Maupin's unusual manner of dress was confirmed by another witness. Thus, these circumstances are distinguishable from the facts of McDonald which dealt with an impermissibly suggestive and unreliable identification. There was no error.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for retrial.

THOMPSON, A.C.J., concurs.