Facts:  Petitioner Robert Danforth, who had previously been convicted of multiple sex offenses, was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Washington Revised Code §71.09 after he went to the King County Sheriff’s Office and told detectives that he was sexually interested in children and would reoffend if he was not committed.  Danforth subsequently appealed his commitment, asserting that his statements to the detectives were a plea for help rather than a threat constituting a “recent overt act” of a sexually violent nature for purposes of §71.09.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Danforth’s commitment, holding that there was sufficient evidence to submit the question of whether Danforth is a sexually violent predator to the jury.  Danforth appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s):  Did Danforth’s statements to the detectives constitute a threat for purposes of §71.09?

If so, is §71.09 unconstitutionally overbroad insofar as it proscribes constitutionally protected speech?

If not, is §71.09 unconstitutionally vague?

Conclusion:  Justice James M. Johnson’s opinion for the Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that a threat for purposes of §71.09 is a threat that creates a reasonable apprehension of sexually violent harm in the mind of an objective person and that given the context of Danforth’s conduct, history, and mental condition, a jury could have reasonably found that Danforth’s statements to the detectives constituted such a threat.  The Court also held that §71.09 is not unconstitutionally overbroad as it is not a criminal statute and does not implicate 1^st Amendment concerns.  Finally, the Court found that §71.09 is also not unconstitutionally vague as it defines “recent overt act” with sufficient precision and provides an ascertainable standard against arbitrary enforcement.

Docket No. 84152-7 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 61967-5)

Petitioner: Robert Danforth

(Counsel: Lila Jane Silverstein)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: David J.W. Hackett)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 10:00am

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

Decided: Thursday, November 10th, 2011

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 5-4

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen2 Court (2011-)

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander

Chambers
(Partial)

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson
(Majority)

Stephens

Wiggins
(Dissent)