In Re The Detention Of: James T. Turner
74248-5
Wash. Ct. App.Jun 5, 2017Background
- James Turner pleaded guilty in 2007 to child molestation and related charges for sexual contact with a 13‑year‑old (S.P.) and later disclosed long‑term sexual abuse of his half‑sister (S.H.) beginning when she was ~6–7 and continuing until he left home at 18.
- After release, Turner violated community custody terms: attempted internet contact with S.P., met/kissed a 14‑year‑old, engaged in sustained online/phone sexual role‑play with an adult who sometimes posed as a teen, and sent sexually suggestive texts to a 15‑year‑old (T.A.), invited her to lunch, and offered a massage.
- In August 2014 the State petitioned to commit Turner as a sexually violent predator (SVP). The State’s expert (Dr. Brian Judd) diagnosed pedophilic disorder and opined the contact with T.A. was a "recent overt act"; defense expert (Dr. Paul Spizman) disagreed on diagnosis/risk.
- Dr. Judd relied on DSM‑5 criteria, Turner’s history (S.H., S.P.), ongoing fantasies and masturbation to preteen material, and actuarial tools (Static‑99R and VRAG‑R) — concluding risk >50% despite Static‑99R being under 50% and VRAG‑R higher.
- A jury found Turner an SVP; the trial court ordered commitment. On appeal Turner challenged (1) admission of Dr. Judd’s testimony that actuarial tools underestimated risk and (2) sufficiency of the evidence on mental abnormality, recent overt act, and likelihood to reoffend. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Turner’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony that actuarial tool (Static‑99R) underestimated risk | Dr. Judd’s critique was speculative and unfairly prejudicial under ER 702/403 | Expert may explain limits of actuarial tools; such testimony goes to weight, not admissibility | Admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion (relevant, supported by studies, probative despite prejudice) |
| Sufficiency to show mental abnormality (pedophilic disorder) | Past acts (esp. S.H.) were remote; contacts like S.P. were borderline or post‑pubescent and insufficient | Dr. Judd’s DSM‑5‑based diagnosis relied on S.H., fantasies, pornographic/masturbatory material, and pattern of attraction to prepubescent/preteen girls | Sufficient evidence for jury to find pedophilic disorder; inconsistencies were credibility matters for jury |
| Sufficiency to show a "recent overt act" | Community custody violations alone insufficient; T.A. was 15 so conduct was not sexually violent toward prepubescent children | Conduct with T.A. (texts, bus contact, saved schedule, invitations/offers), combined with history and expert opinion, created reasonable apprehension of sexually violent harm | Sufficient: jury could find Turner committed a recent overt act given history and expert testimony |
| Sufficiency to show likely to reoffend (more likely than not) | Actuarial tools conflicted; Static‑99R <50% so clinical opinion insufficient to overcome actuarial result | Experts may use actuarial tools plus clinical judgment; Meirhofer permits clinical opinion to diverge from actuarials | Sufficient: Dr. Judd’s combined actuarial and clinical assessment supported finding risk >50% |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724 (Wash. 2003) (actuarial tools admissible; conflicts between clinical and actuarial assessments go to weight)
- In re Det. of Meirhofer, 182 Wn.2d 632 (Wash. 2015) (expert opinion may consider actuarial results but is not limited to them)
- In re Det. of Anderson, 166 Wn.2d 543 (Wash. 2009) (recent acts against substitute victims can qualify as recent overt acts when tied to history/fantasies)
- In re Det. of Audett, 158 Wn.2d 712 (Wash. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review in SVP proceedings)
- In re Det. of Broten, 130 Wn. App. 326 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (appellate deference to factfinder on credibility/conflicting testimony)