Facts: Prior to his impending release from prison, respondent Charles Post was ordered committed as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Washington Revised Code §71.09 after a trial in the Superior Court for King County. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and vacated Post’s commitment, concluding that the trial court had erred in allowing evidence of the treatment that would be made available to Post if he were committed and of the possibility of his future release to a less restrictive alternative to be admitted at trial and in suppressing evidence of the fact that Post could, if not committed, be subject to a new commitment hearing if he committed an overt act of sexual violence following his release. The state of Washington appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Did the trial court err in admitting evidence regarding the treatment that would be made available to Post if he were committed as a sexually violent predator and the possibility of Post’s future release to a less restrictive alternative?

If so, was the error harmless?

Did the trial court err in suppressing evidence of the fact that Post could, if not committed, be subject to a new commitment hearing if he subsequently committed an overt act of sexual violence?

Conclusion: Justice Owens’ opinion for the Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, holding that evidence of the availability of post-commitment treatment and of possible post-commitment modification of Post’s status was irrelevant to determining whether Post is a sexually violent predator under §71.09 and that the admission of such irrelevant evidence was not harmless error. The Court also ruled that the trial court had erred in suppressing evidence of the possibility of Post being subject to a new commitment hearing if he committed an overt act of sexual violence following his release as this was relevant insofar as it could be construed as acting as a deterrant diminishing the likelihood of Post committing such an act. Thus, the Court vacated Post’s commitment and remanded the case.

Docket No. 83023-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 55572-3)

Petitioner: Charles Post

(Counsel: David J.W. Hackett)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: Eric Broman)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:30pm

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

Decided: Thursday, October 28th, 2010

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-2011)

Madsen
(Partial)

Johnson

Alexander

Sanders

Chambers

Owens
(Majority)

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens
(Concurs)