In Re The Detention Of Mark A. Black, 71292-6

Mark A. Black was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP); this court previously reversed on due process grounds for his absence during parts of jury selection but the Washington Supreme Court found he waived that right and remanded.
On remand the remaining issues were whether evidence supported the jury’s finding that Black’s mental conditions caused serious difficulty controlling sexually violent behavior, and whether admission of an expert diagnosis (paraphilia NOS) was erroneous.
The State relied primarily on Dr. Dale Arnold’s testimony and diagnoses after evaluation and DSM-IV consultation.
Dr. Arnold diagnosed (1) personality disorder NOS with antisocial/narcissistic traits (severe on the psychopathy checklist), (2) paraphilia NOS (persistent attraction to pubescent females), and (3) sexual sadism.
Dr. Arnold testified each diagnosis independently affected Black’s emotional/volitional control and caused serious difficulty controlling sexually violent behavior; he linked the personality disorder to grooming/reoffending and gave bases for the paraphilia and sadism diagnoses.
The court concluded the evidence was sufficient to support commitment and that any evidentiary error admitting the paraphilia NOS diagnosis was harmless given alternative diagnoses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Black)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Sufficiency — whether evidence proved mental abnormality or personality disorder caused serious difficulty controlling behavior	Black: evidence did not show personality disorder or other diagnoses caused lack of volitional control; behavior showed control, not lack thereof	State: Dr. Arnold’s diagnoses and explanatory testimony established a direct link from each diagnosis to impaired emotional/volitional control and risk of reoffense	Held: Sufficient evidence supported both alternative means (personality disorder and mental abnormalities); no unanimity problem because a rational factfinder could find both
Evidentiary rulings — admission of paraphilia NOS and exclusion of hebephilia evidence	Black: paraphilia NOS testimony should have been excluded (Frye challenge) and exclusion of hebephilia evidence prejudiced his defense	State: even if paraphilia NOS admission erred, other diagnoses (sexual sadism, personality disorder) provided independent proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior	Held: Any error admitting paraphilia NOS was harmless — alternative diagnoses independently supported the verdict; no reversal required

In re Det. of Halgren, 156 Wn.2d 795 (definition and alternatives for mental abnormality/personality disorder in SVP context)
State v. Owens, 180 Wn.2d 90 (unanimity rules when multiple alternative means/instructions given)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724 (Frye standard and admissibility considerations for expert evidence in SVP proceedings)
In re Det. of West, 171 Wn.2d 383 (harmless error analysis for improperly admitted evidence in SVP cases)