In re the Detention of Coe, 286 P.3d 29

Coe challenged a Court of Appeals ruling affirming his 2008 commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP).
Contends trial court admitted unadjudicated offenses and allowed reliance on that evidence by a psychiatry expert.
Challenges ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not instructing on personality disorder.
Raises due process confrontation rights issues because some offenses’ victims were unavailable.
Argues cumulative error entitlement to new trial was satisfied.
Court affirms commitment, but notes HITS evidence was substantively error-dispositive; prejudice found to be lack of reversible impact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is counsel ineffective for not requesting a personality disorder instruction?	Coe's counsel failed to request the instruction.	At the time, governing authority did not require it.	No reversible error; performance not deficient.
Is Keppel's signature analysis admissible under ER 404(b) as a unique signature?	Signature not unique enough to identify Coe.	Expert testified to signature uniqueness; admissible under ER 404(b).	Admissible; unique signature supported by expert testimony.
Are HITS results properly admissible evidence?	HITS is unreliable hearsay and should not be admitted substantively.	Expert may rely on HITS; database reliability supports admission.	HITS substantive admission rejected as hearsay; however reliance allowed for expert opinion.
Was it proper to allow seven victims to testify based on signature/HITS links?	Unrelated under ER 404(b) and HITS; prejudicial.	Victims’ testimony relevant to SVP determination.	Testimony properly admitted; relevance supported by signature analysis.
Did the admission of unadjudicated offenses violate due process rights to confrontation?	Victims unavailable; cross-examination denied.	SVP context permits limited confrontation; other safeguards exist.	No due process violation; safeguards and limiting instructions mitigate concerns.

State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (WA 2011) (ineffective assistance standard; Strickland framework applied)
In re Det. of Twining, 77 Wn. App. 882 (WA 1995) (instruction on term not required under then-authority)
In re Det. of Pouncy, 168 Wn.2d 382 (WA 2010) (overruled Twining on personality-disorder instruction)
State v. Foxhoven, 161 Wn.2d 168 (WA 2007) (ER 404(b) and balancing probative value vs. prejudice)
State v. Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630 (WA 2002) (signature-like analysis guidance; dissimilarities considered)
State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24 (WA 1994) (signature identity approach; significance of similarities/dissimilarities)
State v. Jenkins, 53 Wn. App. 228 (WA 1989) (early example of combining features to create signature)
State v. Hines, 87 Wn. App. 98 (WA 1997) (hearsay and database considerations in admissibility)
In re Det. of Marshall, 156 Wn.2d 150 (WA 2005) (expert reliance on inadmissible records; permissible for basis of opinion)
Stout, 159 Wn.2d 357 (WA 2007) (Mathews balancing for confrontation rights in SVP context)
Monson, 113 Wn.2d 833 (WA 1989) (public record exception / hearsay considerations)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (US 2004) (confrontation framework cited in broader context)