In Re The Detention Of: Rick A. Monroe
198 Wash. App. 196
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2015 the State filed an amended petition to civilly commit Rick Monroe as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under RCW 71.09.020(18).
- The State’s expert, Dr. Harry Hoberman, diagnosed Monroe with pedophilic disorder (a "mental abnormality") and a mixed personality disorder including psychopathy (a "personality disorder").
- Dr. Hoberman testified Monroe scored 32/40 on the PCL-R and that higher PCL‑R scores correlate with greater risk of sexual recidivism; he also testified Monroe’s pedophilic disorder made him likely to reoffend.
- The jury was instructed that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) prior qualifying sexual convictions, (2) a mental abnormality or personality disorder causing serious difficulty controlling sexually violent behavior, and (3) that the mental abnormality or personality disorder makes Monroe likely to engage in predatory sexual violence if not confined (the “to commit” instruction).
- Monroe did not object to the instruction, and the jury found him an SVP; he appealed arguing the third element was not supported by substantial evidence and counsel was ineffective for failing to object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of "to commit" instruction | Monroe: instruction required proof that either a mental abnormality OR a personality disorder alone made him likely to reoffend, but expert testified only that both together made him likely to reoffend, so evidence did not support instruction | State: other testimony supported that pedophilic disorder alone (mental abnormality) and psychopathy alone (personality disorder) each made Monroe likely to reoffend; instruction correctly stated alternative means | Court: Instruction proper; substantial evidence supported each alternative means, so no manifest error and claim waived for failure to object |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to instruction | Monroe: counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the allegedly improper instruction | State: because instruction was proper, an objection would likely have failed; no prejudice shown | Court: Claim fails — counsel’s performance not shown deficient or prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clausing, 147 Wn.2d 620 (instruction review standard and prejudicial error analysis)
- In re Det. of Halgren, 156 Wn.2d 795 (alternative means: mental abnormality or personality disorder)
- In re Det. of Pouncy, 144 Wn. App. 609 (jury unanimity requirement re: alternative means)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- In re Det. of Moore, 167 Wn.2d 113 (applying Strickland in civil commitment context)