In re the Detention of: Scott R. Halvorson, 32762-1

Background

Scott R. Halvorson (also known as Raymond Scott Reynolds) was tried on a petition seeking civil commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP) after a 2008 conviction for third-degree rape and second-degree assault of a woman identified as D.S.
Halvorson denied responsibility for most past sex-offense allegations; he claimed some incidents were fabricated or occurred while he was intoxicated.
The State presented expert testimony (Dr. Brian Judd) diagnosing Halvorson with paraphilia NOS (nonconsent), pedophilic disorder (mental abnormalities), antisocial personality disorder, alcohol dependence (in a controlled environment), and cannabis abuse disorder.
Dr. Judd testified the pedophilia/paraphilia caused a predisposition to sexually violent offenses; antisocial personality disorder did not alone create such predisposition but could increase risk and was integrated into the overall risk assessment; substance abuse was not considered a driver of recidivism and was treatable.
Halvorson sought to introduce prior statements suggesting D.S. consented to being choked by another man; the trial court excluded that evidence as speculative under ER 412. He also challenged admission of SRA-FV evidence under Frye and certain diagnostic testimony under ER 403/402.
The jury found Halvorson to be an SVP; the appellate court affirmed the commitment order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of antisocial personality disorder evidence	Halvorson: personality disorder was irrelevant after jury instructions limited commitment to a "mental abnormality" and was unduly prejudicial	State: personality and history are relevant to context and to assess risk; disorder could inform risk even if not a standalone basis	Court: Allowed—disorder evidence was relevant to risk assessment; instructions avoided conviction on that prong and reduced confusion
Admission of alcohol and marijuana evidence	Halvorson: substance diagnoses were irrelevant to risk and prejudicial under ER 403; should have been excluded pretrial	State: expert said substance issues were not drivers of recidivism; Halvorson himself introduced substance use testimony	Court: Not reversible error—pretrial exclusion likely should have been granted, but Halvorson opened door by testifying about substance use; expert testimony reduced prejudice
Exclusion of prior "Choke me" statements under ER 412 / right to present defense	Halvorson: exclusion prevented evidence that D.S. consented to sexual asphyxiation, undermining his consent defense	State: testimony was speculative, hearsay, remote, and of limited probative value given prostitution context	Court: Affirmed exclusion—trial court did not abuse discretion; statements were speculative, potentially hearsay, and context made relevance uncertain
Admissibility of SRA-FV risk assessment under Frye	Halvorson: SRA-FV is insufficiently reliable and should be excluded under Frye standard	State: SRA-FV is an accepted actuarial/structured tool for risk assessment	Court: Admitted SRA-FV—court followed controlling precedent in this Division (In re Det. of Ritter) and held tool met Frye reliability

Key Cases Cited

In re Det. of West, 171 Wn.2d 383 (State SVP elements and relevance of evidence)
State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690 (ER 403 balancing: probative value vs. unfair prejudice)
In re Det. of Halgren, 156 Wn.2d 795 (mental abnormality vs. personality disorder as alternative theories)
In re Det. of Audett, 158 Wn.2d 712 (combination of disorders and substance use can support risk of recidivism)
In re Det. of Sease, 149 Wn. App. 66 (multiple risk factors relevant to proving recidivism risk)
In re Det. of Ritter, 192 Wn. App. 493 (admissibility and Frye reliability of SRA-FV)
State v. Magers, 164 Wn.2d 174 (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
In re Det. of Post, 170 Wn.2d 302 (definition/elements of SVP under Washington law)