In Re The Detention Of Patrick Mcgaffee
73727-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 14, 2017Background
- Patrick McGaffee, committed under Washington's SVPA in 1998 for offenses against boys, sought an unconditional release trial in 2013; a jury found he remains a sexually violent predator and the trial court ordered continued confinement.
- State's expert (Dr. Goldberg) diagnosed pedophilic and fetishistic disorders and used structured clinical judgment combining actuarial tools (Static-99R, Static 2002R, VRAG-R) and dynamic measures (SRA-FV, STABLE 2007) to conclude McGaffee is more likely than not to reoffend.
- Defense expert (Dr. Abbott) testified McGaffee did not have a qualifying mental abnormality and criticized the State's instruments (including VRAG-R and SRA-FV) but did not present his own risk-assessment scores.
- Pretrial Frye hearing admitted testimony based on the SRA-FV; lower court found SRA-FV generally accepted and reliably applied in the field.
- Trial disputes included admissibility of SRA-FV under Frye, probative value and prejudice of percentile rankings (94th percentile on Static-99R), limits on cross-examining/criticizing actuarial tools, refusal to ask a jury-submitted question about Dr. Abbott’s instruments, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | McGaffee's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of SRA-FV under Frye | SRA-FV is novel, lacks general acceptance and reliable application | SRA-FV is generally accepted and can be reliably applied; comparable use in other cases | Court affirmed admissibility under Frye (follows Pettis and Ritter) |
| Use of percentile ranking (94th percentile) | Ranking is irrelevant/misleading and unfairly prejudicial (may be conflated with absolute risk) | Percentile is relevant comparative information and expert clarified it is not absolute risk | Admission not an abuse of discretion; probative and jury sought clarification |
| Limiting defense expert's criticism of VRAG-R | Court improperly limited Abbott from fully criticizing VRAG-R, violating right to present a defense | Court properly excluded speculative opinions (e.g., predicting future cross-validation results) | No constitutional violation; exclusion of speculative testimony upheld |
| Refusal to ask jury's question re: instruments Dr. Abbott used | Excluding question prevented jury from learning what instruments Dr. Abbott relied on and impaired defense | Question was outside scope of Abbott's testimony and would have required exploring matters defense chose not to elicit | Court did not abuse discretion in declining to ask the question |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Several closing remarks improperly shifted burden, minimized standards, and capitalized on excluded/absent defense evidence | Remarks were fair inferences from the evidence, clarified limits of actuarials, and did not shift burden | No prosecutorial misconduct; comments viewed in context were permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (establishes general-acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
- In re Det. of Post, 170 Wn.2d 302 (Wash. 2010) (burden on State and SVPA legal standards for continued commitment)
- Pettis v. In re Det. of Pettis, 188 Wn. App. 198 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (admissibility and general acceptance of SRA-FV upheld)
- In re Det. of Ritter, 192 Wn. App. 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (SRA-FV use admissible when combined with Static-99R)
- In re Meirhofer, 182 Wn.2d 632 (Wash. 2015) (experts not limited to actuarial tests; State need not show any single tool exceeds 50%)
- In re Det. of Brooks, 145 Wn.2d 275 (Wash. 2001) ("more likely than not" means probability >50% for reoffense)