Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that evidence concerning treatment that would be available to a person if civilly committed as a sexually violent predator, and the possibility of later release to a less restrictive alternative, is irrelevant to the determination of whether the person currently meets the statutory definition of a sexually violent predator. The court further held that admitting that evidence was not harmless error and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ remand for further proceedings. It also held that the possibility of a future sexually violent predator petition based on a recent overt act is relevant, while leaving admissibility under ER 403 to the trial court.
Holdings
- At an SVP determination trial, evidence concerning treatment that would become available if the respondent were committed, but had not yet been received, and evidence concerning possible future release to a less restrictive alternative is irrelevant to whether the respondent currently meets the statutory definition of an SVP and is inadmissible under ER 402.
- The erroneous admission of evidence concerning postcommitment treatment and potential less restrictive release was not harmless.
- Evidence that a released respondent could be subject to a new SVP commitment petition if he commits a recent overt act is relevant to the SVP determination and does not violate RCW 71.09.060(1), although the trial court must separately determine admissibility under ER 403.
Questions Presented
- Whether the State may introduce evidence at an SVP determination trial concerning treatment that would be available if the respondent were committed and the possibility of future release to a less restrictive alternative.
- Whether admission of the irrelevant treatment and future-release evidence was harmless error.
- Whether evidence that a released respondent could be subject to a new SVP commitment petition upon committing a recent overt act is relevant to the SVP determination.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (14)
- City of Auburn v. Hedlund, 165 Wn.2d 645, 654, 201 P.3d 315 (2009)(followed)
- State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244, 258, 893 P.2d 615 (1995)(followed)
- In re Detention of Audett, 158 Wn.2d 712, 727, 147 P.3d 982 (2006)(followed)
- In re Detention of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 736, 742, 753, 758-59, 72 P.3d 708 (2003)(followed)
- In re Detention of Brooks, 145 Wn.2d 275, 298, 36 P.3d 1034 (2001)(followed subject to later modification)
- In re Detention of Turay, 139 Wn.2d 379, 403-04, 986 P.2d 790 (1999)(followed)
- People v. Rains, 75 Cal. App. 4th 1165, 1167-70, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 737 (1999)(persuasive)
- In re Cross, 99 Wn.2d 373, 379, 662 P.2d 828 (1983)(followed)
- State v. Neal, 144 Wn.2d 600, 611, 30 P.3d 1255 (2001)(followed)
- State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780, 725 P.2d 951 (1986)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 14.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…