Opinion ID: 2341603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Danforth's Motion for Summary Judgment Was Properly Denied

Text: ¶ 19 The meaning of a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo. Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). The court's fundamental objective is to ascertain and carry out the legislature's intent. State v. J.M., 144 Wash.2d 472, 480, 28 P.3d 720 (2001). To carry out the legislature's intent, we look first to the statute's plain language. State v. Armendariz, 160 Wash.2d 106, 110, 156 P.3d 201 (2007). If the plain language is subject to only one interpretation, our inquiry ends because plain language does not require construction. Id. ¶ 20 The plain language of former RCW 71.09.030(5) permits a prosecuting attorney to file a petition to civilly commit an individual as a sexually violent predator if that person has previously been convicted of a sexually violent offense, has since been released from total confinement, has committed a recent overt act, and it appears that the person may be a sexually violent predator. [7] The only issue in this case is whether a jury could have found that Danforth committed a threat within the statutory definition of a recent overt act. Former RCW 71.09.020(10) supplies the definition of recent overt act: Recent overt act means any act or threat that has either caused harm of a sexually violent nature or creates a reasonable apprehension of such harm in the mind of an objective person who knows of the history and mental condition of the person engaging in the act. The word threat is not further defined. Thus, to determine its plain meaning, we may look to the dictionary. Garrison v. Wash. State Nursing Bd., 87 Wash.2d 195, 196, 550 P.2d 7 (1976) (Words in a statute should be given their ordinary meaning absent ambiguity and/or a statutory definition.). ¶ 21 Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2382 (2002) defines threat as a: an expression of an intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage on another; [or] b: expression of an intention to inflict loss or harm on another.... We adopt this definition and hold that, by including the common and ordinary meaning of the word threat within the definition of recent overt act, the legislature intended to civilly commit sexually violent offenders before harm to another victim occurs. See LAWS OF 2001, ch. 286, § 4; LAWS OF 1995, ch. 216, § 1; J.M., 144 Wash.2d at 480, 28 P.3d 720 (If the statute's meaning is plain on its face, then courts must give effect to its plain meaning as an expression of what the Legislative intended.). ¶ 22 With this statute, a recent overt act includes both the acts and threats an offender has committed that have either caused harm of a sexually violent nature or have created a reasonable apprehension of sexually violent harm in the mind of an objective person who knows of the offender's history and mental condition. This does not mean that an offender must both act and make a threat to commit a recent overt act. Rather, it means that an offender's threats must be evaluated in the context of the offender's conduct, history and mental condition. Here, the statements made by Danforth at the King County Sheriff's Office must be evaluated in the context of his actions, his history, and his mental condition.
¶ 23 We review summary judgment rulings de novo, engaging in the same inquiry as the trial court. Harris v. Ski Park Farms, Inc., 120 Wash.2d 727, 737, 844 P.2d 1006 (1993); RAP 9.12. A summary judgment will be affirmed if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c); Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wash.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). All facts and reasonable inferences are reviewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Steinbach, 98 Wash.2d at 437, 656 P.2d 1030. Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where there is no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for a party with respect to the issue. CR 50; see also Schmidt v. Coogan, 162 Wash.2d 488, 493, 173 P.3d 273 (2007) (per curiam) (an order granting judgment as a matter of law should be limited to circumstances in which there is no doubt as to the proper verdict). ¶ 24 There are no genuine issues of material fact in this case. It is argued that Danforth's actions did not constitute a threat as a matter of law. However, considering the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (the State), there is a legally sufficient basis for a jury to find that Danforth expressed an intention to inflict loss or harm on another, and therefore, it was proper to submit to the jury the issue of whether he committed a recent overt act. [8] ¶ 25 Danforth explicitly described to the detective at the King County Sheriff's Office his specific plan to molest boys and have intercourse with a child. He repeatedly said that he would act on his plan if he was not committed as a sex offender. Although Danforth characterizes his actions as a conditional cry for help, instead of as a threat, a difference in characterization with respect to Danforth's motive for approaching the sheriff's office does not change the objective nature of his actions. Compare Pet. for Review at 16-19, with State's Resp. Br. at 16-19. More importantly, that there is arguably a difference in characterization means that this is exactly the type of question we submit to juries. We surely cannot hold Danforth's statements were not threats as a matter of law.