Opinion ID: 2550767
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Substantial Danger or Likelihood of Committing Criminal Acts Jeopardizing Public Safety

Text: ¶ 46 Finally, Klein argues that the trial court erred in finding that she continues to present a substantial danger to others or a substantial likelihood of committing criminal acts jeopardizing public safety. We hold that substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court's finding. ¶ 47 An insanity acquittee must be released if he or she is no longer dangerous, regardless of the presence of a mental disease or defect. See O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 575, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975) (A finding of `mental illness' alone cannot justify a State's locking a person up against his will and keeping him indefinitely in simple custodial confinement ... [T]here is no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one and can live safely in freedom.). Accord Reid, 144 Wash.2d at 630 n. 3, 30 P.3d 465 (citing O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 575, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975) and Foucha, 504 U.S. at 77, 112 S.Ct. 1780 (quoting Jones, 463 U.S. at 368, 103 S.Ct. 3043)). ¶ 48 The determination that an individual remains a danger to the public is a question of fact. We generally do not substitute our judgment with that of the trier of fact regarding issues of conflicting expert testimony. See State v. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d 668, 718, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997) (citing State v. Benn, 120 Wash.2d 631, 662, 845 P.2d 289 (1993)). ¶ 49 Klein argues that there is insufficient evidence on the record that she remains a substantial danger to the public. Yet, this assertion misstates the burden of proof under the statute. Under RCW 10.77.200(2) and (3), the burden of proof is on Klein to show by a preponderance of the evidence that she no longer presents a substantial danger to others. On this record, Klein failed to do so. ¶ 50 Dr. Couturier testified that Klein presented a substantial danger, especially if she returned to the use of controlled substances. Q. Secondly, is she a substantial danger, in your opinion, to other persons or does she present a substantial likelihood of committing criminal acts jeopardizing public safety or security unless kept under further control? A. I do believe that she does .... Does she represent a danger? If she returns to the use of methamphetamine, which is very likely, or cocaine  because I don't think her controls are nearly as good as she'd like us to believe  there's a substantially enhanced chance of having violent behavior. VRP (May 21, 2003) at 10. See also id. at 9 (there's an enhanced opportunity, chance, likelihood, of violent behavior); id. at 12 (Using chemicals in the amounts that she was using and reported to us, there's an enhanced chance that she's going to re-offend in some way.). ¶ 51 Klein argues that the testimony of both Dr. Couturier and Dr. Trowbridge only establishes that she is a moderate risk to others, which falls short of the substantial danger requirement in the statute. See Br. of Appellant at 7 (referencing dictionary definition of moderate as average means or extent). Klein appears to base this on some testimony in which she was considered a moderate risk to reoffend. See VRP (June 25, 2003) at 13, 32. ¶ 52 However, this argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, it overlooks statements by both experts that indicated that Klein did pose a substantial danger if she returned to using drugs (as she had on numerous occasions previously). ¶ 53 Second, there is no indication that the statements of moderate risk were made in connection with the statutory standard. For example, although Dr. Couturier used the term moderate to describe Klein's danger, he clarified that moderate meant much higher than the average individual. VRP (June 25, 2003) at 32. ¶ 54 In light of this potentially conflicting expert testimony, we defer to the trial court's discretion on which expert to believe. The trial court judge specifically accepted the risk assessment prepared by Dr. Couturier. Substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court's conclusion that Klein posed a substantial danger.