Opinion ID: 2341603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Danforth Stipulates to Civil Commitment Just Before Trial

Text: ¶ 15 As trial was set to begin, the State introduced a stipulation agreed to when Danforth's motion for summary judgment was denied. The stipulation reads, in pertinent part: The Respondent and the State enter into this Stipulation for the purpose of resolving the commitment trial currently in progress. . . . . By entering into this stipulation, respondent retains the right to appeal the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment argued before the trial court on June 12, 2008. If Mr. Danforth prevails on appeal, he will have the right to withdraw this stipulation. . . . . Respondent has committed a recent overt act as that term is defined in RCW 71.09.020, namely through statements Mr. Danforth made to the [MHPs] on October 25, 2006[and] to the King County Sheriff on October 25, 2006 and October 26, 2006. . . . . The Respondent understands that if the Court accepts this Stipulation[,] ... commitment shall last until Respondent's condition has so changed that he no longer meets the definition of a sexually violent predator or he is conditionally released to a [Less Restrictive Alternative] pursuant to RCW 71.09.090. CP at 286-90. The court accepted the stipulation and found all the statutory elements necessary to commit Danforth on June 16, 2008.