Blog Archives

In re the Detention of Coe

by
Docket No. 85965-5 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 27520-5)
Synopsis: Whether the trial court in a sexually violent predator commitment proceeding properly admitted expert testimony that the detainee probably committed several unsolved sex offenses based on a comparison of the detainee’s adjudicated offenses with the characteristics of the unsolved offenses identified in a criminal acts database.

Washington v. Hurst

by

Docket No. 85549-8 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63052-1)  Facts:  Petitioner John Hurst was charged with third degree assault in the Superior Court for King County.  However, the superior court subsequently found Hurst incompetent to stand trial and ordered him committed to Western State Hospital for 90 days to restore his competency.  After 90 days elapsed, the superior court found that Hurst was still incompetent and ordered him committed for an additional 90 days.  90 days later, a jury trial was convened pursuant to Washington Revised Code §10.77.086(4) to determine whether Hurst should remain committed.  The jury found that while Hurst does not present a substantial danger to other persons there is a substantial likelihood that he will commit criminal acts jeopardizing public safety or security and that there is a substantial probability that will regain competency within a reasonable period of time.  The trial court subsequently entered an order committing Hurst for an additional 180 days.  Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that §10.77.086(4) only requires that the state prove dangerousness on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence and that this standard does not deny defendants whose competency is questioned due process of law. Continue reading →

In re detention of Danforth

by

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

In re detention of Pouncy

by

Docket No. 81769-3 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 59034-1)  Facts: The petitioner state of Washington petitioned the Superior Court for King County to have respondent Curtis Pouncy committed as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Washington Revised Code §71.09, asserting that Pouncy suffered from a personality disorder that made him likely to commit predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined. Continue reading →

In re detention of D.F.F.

by

Docket No. 81687-5 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 59462-1)  Facts:  Respondent D.F.F. was involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment following a commitment proceeding in the Superior Court for Whatcom County that was closed to the public pursuant to Superior Court Mental Proceedings Rule 1.3, which stipulates that involuntary commitment proceedings shall not be open to the public unless the person who is the subject of the proceedings or their attorney files a written request that the proceedings be opened.  D.F.F. subsequently appealed her commitment, asserting that mandatory closure under Rule 1.3 violated her right under Article I §10 of the Washington State Constitution to the open administration of justice. Continue reading →

In re detention of Moore

by

Docket No. 81201-2 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 58087-6)  Facts: Petitioner Paul Moore challenged the judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County that civilly committed Moore as a sexually violent predator (SVP) pursuant to Chap. 71.09 RCW. Under his due process challenge, Moore argued that the trial court erred in accepting his stipulation to certain facts in lieu of witness testimony without conducting inquiry into Moore’s competency; Continue reading →