Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Detention of Martin

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 2008No. 78963-1Published

1Dissent

¶36

(dissenting) — At most, this case presents a highly technical statutory error, the kind the legislature has instructed us to disregard unless it affects “the substantial rights of the adverse party.” RCW 4.36.240. Since Sheldon Martin has not met this burden, I respectfully disagree with my colleagues that he is entitled to the extreme remedy of dismissal.

Chambers, J.

¶37 Our legislature has created a system of civil confinement for sexually violent predators who are likely to *517reoffend, chapter 71.09 RCW. Under chapter 71.09 RCW, the State could civilly commit Martin if it proved, beyond a…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. J.M.Washington Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Dougherty v. DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIESWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Dougherty v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 2003

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API