IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of the Detention of

DONALD CURBOW,

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

No. 36153-5-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

KORSMO, J. — Donald Curbow appeals from a jury verdict finding him to be a 

sexually violent predator (SVP), arguing that his evidence was more persuasive than that 

offered against him. Since the jury is the sole determiner of credibility and 

persuasiveness, we affirm. 

FACTS

The State petitioned to have Mr. Curbow committed as a sexually violent predator 

in 2016. His prior criminal history included two 1995 convictions for attempted sexual 

abuse in Multnomah County, Oregon, and 1999 Spokane County convictions for first 

degree child rape and first degree child molestation. The SVP petition proceeded to jury 

trial in the Spokane County Superior Court.

The State presented testimony from clinical psychologist Harry Hoberman who 

had evaluated Mr. Curbow in 2013, 2016, and 2018. Dr. Hoberman diagnosed Curbow 

with pedophilic disorder, hebephilic disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and 

narcissistic personality disorder. He concluded, based on the evaluations, risk assessment 

FILED

MARCH 12, 2020

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 36153-5-III

In re Detention of Curbow

2

instruments, and diagnoses, that Curbow was more likely than not to commit sexual 

offenses in the future. 

Clinical psychologist Christopher Fisher testified for Mr. Curbow. He also 

diagnosed him with pedophilic disorder, but concluded that he was not likely to commit 

sexual offenses in the future. Curbow argued to the jury that Dr. Hoberman’s assessment 

tools were flawed and that Curbow’s age made him unlikely to reoffend.

The jury nonetheless concluded that Curbow was an SVP. He timely appealed to 

this court. A panel considered his appeal without holding argument.

ANALYSIS 

This appeal presents the single issue of whether the State presented sufficient 

evidence to support the SVP finding. It did.

RCW 71.09.060 authorizes the civil commitment of those persons meeting the 

statutory definition of “sexually violent predator.” An SVP is 

any person who has been 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. 

RCW 71.09.020(18). 

Because the statute requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, challenges to the 

sufficiency of the evidence in SVP determinations are evaluated using the same criteria 

courts use for criminal convictions. In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 744, 72 P.3d 
No. 36153-5-III

In re Detention of Curbow

3

708 (2003). In a sufficiency challenge, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable 

to the State, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the State and interpreted 

most strongly against the respondent. In re Det. of Audett, 158 Wn.2d 712, 727, 147 P.3d 

982 (2006). A commitment will be upheld only if any rational trier of fact could have 

found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 727-728. Clinical and 

actuarial assessments of future dangerousness are admissible in SVP commitment 

hearings. Thorell, 149 Wn.2d at 756. Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence carry 

equal weight. State v. Goodman, 150 Wn.2d 774, 781, 83 P.3d 410 (2004). Credibility 

determinations are for the trier of fact and are not subject to review. State v. Camarillo, 

115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990). 

Mr. Curbow’s appeal runs head on into the last-noted principle. He argues that the 

evidence that he is too old to be likely to reoffend was more persuasive than that offered 

by the State, thus leaving the “likely to reoffend” element unproved. Specifically, he 

argues that newer assessment tools call into question the continuing vitality of the tools 

used by the State, even though they have previously been approved by our Supreme 

Court.

1

 The existence of a controversy, if in fact one exists, does not invalidate the 

accepted risk assessment tools relied on by the State’s expert.

1

“The central issue, in this case, is whether the actuarial and testimonial evidence 

was sufficient when its validity and usefulness has been questioned by researchers and 

experts who evaluate individuals for civil commitment under RCW 71.09.” Br. of 

Appellant at 22. 
No. 36153-5-III 

In re Detention of Curbow 

Rather, these were arguments for the jury to consider and weigh. For purposes of 

our review, the question was whether there was evidence that permitted the jury to reach 

the conclusion that it did. Audett, 158 Wn.2d at 727-728. Viewing the evidence in a 

light most favorable to the State, as we must, establishes that the State met its burden. 

The prior offenses were established, and both experts agreed that Mr. Curbow was a 

pedophile. The remaining question, the likelihood of reoffense, was established by Dr. 

Hoberman's testimony. The jury was free to disregard that testimony or accept it. It 

accepted the evidence, as was its right. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d at 71. 

The judgment is affirmed. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040. 

WE CONCUR: 

Fearing, i 

4