Facts: Prior to his impending release from prison, petitioner Gale West was committed indefinitely as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Washington Revised Code §71.09 after a trial in the Superior Court for King County. West subsequently appealed his commitment, asserting that the trial court had erred in admitting testimony describing the treatment that had been made available to him at the state’s Special Commitment Center insofar as it was irrelevant and prejudicial, in limiting his ability to introduce evidence relating to the efficacy of that treatment insofar as it violated his due process rights to present a defense and confront witnesses against him, and in denying his motion to compel the state’s expert witness to release the results of the other sexually violent predator psychological evaluations that he had conducted prior to examining West. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed West’s commitment, holding that any error was harmless. West appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Was the testimony describing the treatment that had been made available to West at the Special Commitment Center irrelevant and prejudicial?

Did the trial court violate West’s due process rights to present a defense and confront witnesses against him by limiting his ability to introduce evidence relating to the efficacy of the treatment he received?

Did the trial court err in denying West’s motion to compel the state’s expert witness to release the results of the other sexually violent predator psychological evaluations that he had conducted prior to examining West?

Conclusion: Justice Fairhurst’s opinion for the Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that the testimony describing the treatment that had been made available to West at the Special Commitment Center was relevant given that it provided context permitting the jury to assess whether West’s decision to discontinue treatment made him more likely to reoffend. The Court also held that while the trial court had properly limited the introduction of evidence relating to the efficacy of the treatment West received to West’s own testimony describing his reasons for discontinuing treatment insofar as evidence of deficiencies in the treatment that West was unaware of would have been irrelevant, it had erred in denying West’s motion to compel the state’s expert witness to release the results of the other sexually violent predator psychological evaluations that he had conducted prior to examining West with regard to those evaluations that had been conducted for cases in which he had testified as these are subject to discovery under Washington Court Rule 26(b)(5)(A) as factual knowledge and opinions held by an expert and developed in anticipation of litigation. However, the Court found that the error was harmless insofar as it was unlikely that it affected the outcome of the trial.

Docket No. 82568-8 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 59666-7)

Petitioner: Gale West

(Counsel: Nancy P. Collins)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: David J.W. Hackett)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, May 27, 2010 1:30pm

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, May 5th, 2011

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 8-1

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-2011)

Madsen
(Concurs)

Johnson

Alexander

Sanders
(Dissent)

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst
(Majority)

Johnson

Stephens