122 Wash. App. 620 | Wash. Ct. App. | 2004
Charles Skinner appeals the order committing him as a sexually violent predator (SVP) and the order denying his motion to dismiss following a trial on less restrictive alternatives to confinement (LRAs). The State
We hold in the published portion of this opinion that the provisions of former RCW 71.09.094 that permit a judgment as a matter of law on the issue of conditional release comply with due process and equal protection. Further, we conclude that the trial court erred in holding the LRA trial in contravention of the statutes, and that the verdict on this trial and the trial court’s denial of the State’s motion for judgment as a matter of law are void. We also hold that Skinner’s challenges to the order of commitment in this case are not persuasive. Finally, respecting the remaining issues that the State raises in its cross appeal, we conclude there was no prejudicial error by the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Skinner has been convicted repeatedly for committing sex offenses.
Skinner moved pretrial for clarification of evidentiary issues. He noted that the definition of “sexually violent predator” in former RCW 71.09.020(1),
At the conclusion of the commitment phase, the jury found that Skinner was an SVP. However, at the conclusion of the conditional release phase, the jury found that the State had failed to meet its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “a less restrictive alternative is not in the best interests of Charles Skinner or will not adequately protect the community” and that Skinner was likely to reoffend if released to an LRA.
Skinner subsequently moved to dismiss based on the jury’s finding that the State had failed to prove that an LRA was not in his best interests or would not adequately protect the community. He argued that this finding negated the finding that he was an SVP. The trial court denied the motion.
The State sought reconsideration of a prior ruling that former RCW 71.09.094 was unconstitutional. The State also moved for judgment as a matter of law based on that statute. The court denied these motions.
The court entered an order of commitment and directed the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) “to prepare a conditional release plan for Mr. Skinner which meets the criteria articulated in RCW 71.09.092.” The court also ordered the Department of Corrections “to investigate the less restrictive alternative proposed by the parties and
Skinner appeals the commitment order and the order denying his posttrial motion to dismiss on the basis of the jury verdict. The State cross-appeals, challenging the order for the second phase of trial, the order declaring former RCW 71.09.094(1) unconstitutional, the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, and several evidentiary rulings.
In October 2001, this court stayed a trial court hearing to evaluate a proposed LRA plan pending our decision on appeal. We ordered further stays pending the Supreme Court’s decisions in In re Detention of Brooks
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
The State argues that the trial court erred in deciding that the provisions of former RCW 71.09.094(1) providing for judgment as a matter of law unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof to an SVP to propose an LRA that meets the criteria set forth in RCW 71.09.092. We hold that the statute is not unconstitutional: the burden of proof remains with the State, notwithstanding the fact that the statutory procedure tests whether any triable issue remains for a jury to consider. Moreover, on this record, the trial court should have granted the State’s motion.
Former RCW 71.09.094 states that:
(1) Upon the conclusion of the evidence in a hearing held pursuant to RCW 71.09.090, if the court finds that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find that the conditions set forth in RCW 71.09.092 have been met,*627 the court shall grant a motion by the State for a judgment as a matter of law on the issue of conditional release to a less restrictive alternative.[6 ]
The trial court held that former RCW 71.09.094(1) required the respondent to bear the burden of providing proof that he fulfills the requirements of RCW 71.09.092, and that this requirement shifted the burden of proof from the State. According to the court, such a shift violates due process and is therefore unconstitutional. We hold that this statute does not violate due process.
Statutes are presumed to be constitutional.
Former RCW 71.09.094(1) required the court to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law in favor of the State on the issue of conditional release to an LRA if no legally sufficient evidentiary basis existed for a reasonable jury to find that the conditions set forth in RCW 71.09.092 are met. A court may not order conditional release unless these conditions are met:
(1) The person will be treated by a treatment provider who is qualified to provide such treatment in the State of Washington . . .; (2) the treatment provider has presented a specific course of treatment and has agreed to assume responsibility for such treatment and will report progress to the court on a regular basis, and will report violations immediately to the court, the prosecutor, the supervising community corrections officer, and the superintendent of the special commitment center; (3) housing exists that is sufficiently secure to protect the community, and the person or agency providing housing to the conditionally released person has agreed in writing to accept the person, to provide the level of security required by the court, and immediately to report to the court, the prosecu*628 tor, the supervising community corrections officer, and the superintendent of the special commitment center if the person leaves the housing to which he or she has been assigned without authorization; (4) the person is willing to comply with the treatment provider and all requirements imposed by the treatment provider and by the court; and (5) the person is willing to comply with supervision requirements imposed by the department of corrections.[9 ]
It is undisputed that two of these requirements, a treatment provider and a residence, were not met in this case as of the time of the State’s motion.
Implicit in the wording of former RCW 71.09.094(1) is the requirement that the State bears the burden of proof on the issue that is the subject of a motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Likewise, the requirement that the burden of proof for such a motion is beyond a reasonable doubt is implicit in the statutory framework.
We reach these conclusions for two reasons. First, former RCW 71.09.094(2) expressly states that the State has the burden of proof before the jury at trial and that the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
The issue here is whether the burden of proof shifted away from the State and to Skinner when the former moved
Commentators have observed that the term “burden of proof” encompasses two separate burdens: that of producing evidence on a particular issue and that of persuading the trier of fact that a particular fact is true.
The statutory provisions that Skinner challenges are designed to test whether there is a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury to find that the mandatory requirements of RCW 71.09.092 have been met. Under this statute, both the burden of producing evidence that Skinner failed to fulfill the mandatory statutory criteria and persuading the court of the truth of that proposition remained with the State. The fact that Skinner had the opportunity to bring forth evidence to attempt to defeat the State’s motion did not shift the burden of proof away from the State. Rather, the motion tested whether the evidence then before the court, regardless of the source of that evidence, was legally sufficient for the question to go to the jury. Unques
There was no shifting of the burden of proof away from the State and no violation of due process.
Citing People v. Trainor
In Trainor, the court held that a summary judgment proceeding “would allow the State to circumvent the defendant’s right to a jury trial”
Skinner also argues that former RCW 71.09.094(1) violates equal protection. He claims that it requires the respondent to produce a currently available treatment and residence plan while under chapter 71.05 RCW, the involuntary commitment act, the State is required to create an appropriate LRA even where none exists. We disagree with this contention.
Skinner also argues that former RCW 71.09.094(1) unlawfully discriminates against indigent SVPs because chapter 71.05 RCW does not require the individual to obtain a treatment provider and housing in advance. We disagree.
We first note that Skinner fails to point to any evidence in the record to support his claim that his inability to obtain a treatment provider or residence is based on indigency. We further note that equal protection analysis requires intermediate scrutiny when considering a claim that a law discriminates against the poor.
Thorell establishes that this challenged law is to be fairly viewed as furthering a substantial State interest. The requirements of RCW 71.09.092 further the State’s interest by assuring that necessary treatment will continue, and
Thus, even under the heightened level of scrutiny to be applied in the case of indigency, the treatment requirements and increased dangerousness of SVPs differ from those for individuals committed under chapter 71.05 RCW. For these reasons, we conclude there is no equal protection violation on the basis of indigency in this case.
In sum, Skinner fails in his burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that former RCW 71.09.094(1) is unconstitutional.
The State argues that the trial court erred in determining that equal protection considerations required an LRA trial immediately following the commitment trial. We agree.
The Supreme Court in Thorell stated that chapter 71.09 RCW “restricts the court. . . from ordering an LRA prior to a hearing under the annual LRA review provision, RCW 71.09.090, following initial commitment,” and that “those who meet the statutory definition and are committed as SVPs are not entitled to consideration of LRAs until their first annual review.”
We reverse the trial court’s ruling determining that former RCW 71.09.094 is unconstitutional and conclude that the verdict on the LRA hearing is vacated. We otherwise affirm the trial court’s decisions.
Ellington and Appelwick, JJ., concur.
Review denied at 153 Wn.2d 1026 (2005).
Skinner’s criminal history began with two rapes during burglaries in 1971. Each time he has been released from incarceration, he has begun a pattern of burglary and rape or attempted rape. He committed burglaries at the homes of single women in 1979 and 1981 where he admitted he intended to or attempted to rape the victims.
Former RCW 71.09.020(1) stated that “sexually violent predator” “means any person ... convicted of or charged with a crime of sexual violence and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility.”
On appeal, the State moved to supplement its designation of clerk’s papers. Because the additional material is irrelevant to our disposition of this case, we deny the motion.
145 Wn.2d 275, 36 P.3d 1034 (2001).
149 Wn.2d 724, 72 P.3d 708 (2003).
(Emphasis added.)
State v. Pauling, 149 Wn.2d 381, 386, 69 P.3d 331 (2003).
In re Bet. ofC.W., 147 Wn.2d 259, 277, 53 P.3d 979 (2002).
RCW 71.09.092.
“Whenever the issue of conditional release to a less restrictive alternative is submitted to the jury, the court shall instruct the jury to return a verdict in substantially the following form: Has the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the proposed less restrictive alternative is not in the best interests of respondent or will not adequately protect the community? Answer: Yes or No.” (Emphasis added.)
In re Det. of Petersen, 145 Wn.2d 789, 795, 42 P.3d 952 (2002).
2 John W. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 336, at 409 (5th ed. 1999).
Id.
Id.
See In. re Dependency ofC.B., 61 Wn. App. 280, 282, 810 P.2d 518 (1991).
See 2 Strong, supra.
Id.
196 Ill. 2d 318, 752 N.E.2d 1055 (2001).
RCW 71.09.090(2) (1998).
RCW 71.09.094(1) (1998).
Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724.
Id. at 748-49.
State v. Phelan, 100 Wn.2d 508, 514, 671 P.2d 1212 (1983).
Id. at 512 (citation omitted).
Thorell, 149 Wn.2d at 751.
State v. Phelps, 113 Wn. App. 347, 354-55, 57 P.3d 624 (2002).