Opinion ID: 2341603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Danforth's Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: ¶ 11 Danforth filed for summary judgment. He claimed that he had not committed a recent overt act because (1) his threat to rub against the back of 13 to 15 year old boys, for sexual pleasure, did not [rise] to the level of a threat of sexually violent offense that satisfies ... 71.09.020(10) ... and (2) RCW 71.09 is unconstitutionally vague as applied [to Danforth], as speech alone is alleged as the recent overt act. CP at 61-62. ¶ 12 Danforth's motion also maintained that the following facts were not in controversy: (1) he made the threats set out in the State's Petition, (2) he went to the Sheriff's Office [and said] `I feel like re-offending,' (3) he said he would go to a specific video arcade and find a boy playing a video game and rub himself against the back of them, and (4) he had said yes [this was for his pleasure], and `if they liked it I might pursue more.' Id. at 61. ¶ 13 Danforth also acknowledged that Dr. Lund, who had known Danforth since at least 2002, [4] rendered an opinion that Mr. Danforth's threat was a basis for apprehension of harm of a sexually violent nature. Id.; see also former RCW 71.09.020(10). ¶ 14 The trial court heard the motion for summary judgment to dismiss the petition. The motion was denied. The court indicated that it found there was sufficient evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment based on the true threat concept as being a... recent overt act. [5] Tr. of Trial Proceedings (June 12, 2008) at 85. In its order, dated July 10, 2008, the court ruled that a reasonable jury could find that [Danforth's] acts as outlined in the evidence before the court constituted a Recent Overt Act. CP at 420-21.