holding that prior victim testimony is relevant in an SVP proceeding
How later courts described this case
- holding that prior victim testimony is relevant in an SVP proceeding
- declining to determine whether annual review I provisions of RCW 71.09.090 violate equal protection clause of the state constitution after holding that the annual review provisions do not violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution because the two clauses have the same | impact
- stating that a facial challenge must be rejected unless there exists no set of circumstances in which the statute can be applied constitutionally
- acknowledging that sexually violent predators “may, as of right, appeal their initial order of commitment pursuant to RAP 2.2(a)(8),” but rejecting right to appeal postcommitment orders
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Madsen, J.
(concurring in the dissent) — For the reasons stated in my concurrence in the dissent in In re Detention of Campbell, 139 Wn.2d 341 , 986 P.2d 771 (1999), I also dissent from the majority in this case.