Opinion ID: 2341603
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Former RCW 71.09.020(10) Defines Recent Overt Act with Sufficient Definiteness

Text: ¶ 32 To determine whether a challenged ordinance is sufficiently definite, the statutory language is afforded a sensible, meaningful, and practical interpretation. Douglass, 115 Wash.2d at 180, 795 P.2d 693. As the United States Supreme Court has said, this does not preclude the use of ordinary terms to express ideas which find adequate interpretation in common usage and understanding. The use of common experience as a glossary is necessary to meet the practical demands of legislation. Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 393, 52 S.Ct. 581, 76 L.Ed. 1167 (1932) (citations omitted). A statute is not unconstitutionally vague merely because a person cannot predict with precise certainty the exact point at which his or her actions may be classified as a recent overt act. See City of Seattle v. Eze, 111 Wash.2d 22, 26, 759 P.2d 366 (1988). ¶ 33 Here, the common and ordinary meaning of threat is an expression of intent to inflict loss or harm on another. This is a sensible, meaningful, and practical interpretation of the statute that is consistent with the legislature's intent to civilly commit sexually violent offenders before harm to another victim occurs. Former RCW 71.09.020(10) defines recent overt act with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct amounts to a recent overt act. [12]