State v. McCuistion, 275 P.3d 1092

McCuistion, previously civilly committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP), sought an evidentiary hearing under RCW 71.09.090(2) after a 2006 show cause hearing.
The 2005 amendments (Laws of 2005, ch. 344) narrowed criteria for obtaining a full evidentiary hearing to a physiological change or a treatment-induced mental change.
DSHS annual reviews (2004–2005) continued confinement; 2005 review cited high risk scores and diagnoses indicating SVP status.
Dr. Lee Coleman submitted a declaration contending McCuistion never met SVP criteria; other evidence included expert articles and SCC staff declarations.
The trial court denied the evidentiary hearing; the Court of Appeals denied discretionary review. The Supreme Court granted review to assess the statutory scheme and constitutional challenges.
The majority ultimately upheld the 2005 amendments, holding no statutory or constitutional right to a full evidentiary hearing existed absent the statutory change criteria.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does McCuistion have a statutory or constitutional right to an evidentiary hearing?	McCuistion shows change in condition, entitling him to hearing	2005 amendments limit show cause to two change types; no right absent those changes	No right to full evidentiary hearing absent statutory change
Do the 2005 amendments violate substantive due process?	Amendments are overbroad and undermine core constitutional protection	Amendments focus on targeted changes and preserve core due process	No substantive due process violation
Do the 2005 amendments violate procedural due process?	Amendments impair meaningful annual review	Procedures remain adequate; safeguards preserved	No procedural due process violation; amendments satisfy Mathews balancing
Do the 2005 amendments violate the separation of powers?	Legislature intrudes on fact-finding	Legislation creates facially neutral rule; not directed at case-by-case facts	No separation-of-powers violation; legislative changes constitutional as applied
Is the amendments' facial challenge meritless?	Concedes demographic changes are insufficient under pre-2005 law	Statute handles constitutional concerns within framework of annual review	Facial challenge rejected; amendments constitutional as applied

Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (U.S. 1992) (due process requires ongoing assessment of danger and mental illness)
O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1975) (constitutional rights of non-dangerous insanity patients)
Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1983) (due process and rights of commitment)
In re Pers. Restraint of Young, 122 Wash.2d 1 (Wash. 1993) (SVP scheme upheld; annual review central to constitutionality)
In re Det. of Petersen, 145 Wash.2d 789 (Wash. 2002) (burden at annual review; probable cause standards)
Ambers v. Det. of Ambers, 160 Wash.2d 543 (Wash. 2007) (validates concerns about evidence limitations post-2005 amendments)
In re Det. of Elmore, 162 Wash.2d 27 (Wash. 2007) (retroactivity and evidentiary standards in 2005 amendments)
In re Det. of Ward, 125 Wash.App. 381 (Wash. App. 2005) (demographic changes as grounds for change in SVP status)
City of Tacoma v. O'Brien, 85 Wash.2d 266 (Wash. 1975) (legislative-action vs. judicial function—separation of powers)