In Re The Detention Of Troy Belcher, 47328-3

Troy Belcher, committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP) after juvenile adjudications for two sex offenses and subsequent adult convictions, sought an unconditional discharge trial in 2014.
He waived a jury; bench trial followed after the court found probable cause for a trial.
State expert Dr. Brian Judd reviewed extensive records, interviewed Belcher, used DSM-5, PCL-R, and VRAG‑R, and diagnosed antisocial personality disorder with high psychopathy, concluding Belcher remained likely to commit predatory sexual violence.
Belcher’s expert, Dr. Brian Abbott, opined Belcher no longer met SVP criteria; the trial court found Abbott’s testimony not credible.
The trial court ordered continued commitment; Belcher appealed claiming due process violations, insufficient evidence on likelihood to reoffend and on mental abnormality, and that the State’s expert lacked proper qualifications.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding sufficient evidence supported continued commitment and rejecting Belcher’s procedural and evidentiary claims.

Issue	Belcher's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Use of juvenile adjudications as predicates	Juvenile offenses cannot support SVP commitment (due process)	Juvenile adjudications are proper predicates under RCW and precedent	Rejected — juvenile adjudications may be used; statute and cases permit this
Use of actuarial tools (VRAG‑R) to show likelihood to reoffend	VRAG‑R is for violent recidivism, not sexual recidivism; unreliable	Actuarial tools are accepted in the field and were one component of a comprehensive evaluation	Rejected — VRAG‑R and other tools are accepted and, with clinical data, support finding of likelihood to reoffend
Sufficiency of evidence of "mental abnormality" (diagnosis of ASPD/psychopathy)	Antisocial personality disorder / psychopathy insufficient or improperly diagnosed by State expert	Diagnosis tied to volitional/emotional impairment and prior sexually violent behavior satisfies statutory definition	Rejected — record supports diagnosis meeting statutory definition and linking to risk of predatory sexual acts
Qualifications of State expert	Dr. Judd lacked a required forensic psychologist license (raised on appeal)	No such licensing requirement; challenge was not preserved at trial	Rejected — issue not preserved; no authority for claimed licensing defect

In re Det. of Morgan, 180 Wn.2d 312 (Wash. 2014) (SVP scheme and due process principles)
In re Pers. Restraint of Young, 122 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 1993) (legislature’s role and civil nature of SVP commitment)
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (constitutional requirements for civil commitment of dangerous sexual offenders)
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1997) (civil confinement of sexually violent predators upheld when coupled with mental abnormality)
In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724 (Wash. 2003) (SVP proof standard and use of diagnoses and expert testimony)
In re Det. of Strauss, 106 Wn. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (acceptance of actuarial instruments in SVP risk assessments)