Legal Opinion

In re the Detention of Pouncy

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 11, 2010No. 81769-3PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

¶1 Following trial, a jury found Curtis Pouncy to be a sexually violent predator. Pouncy seeks a new trial, claiming that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the definition of “personality disorder” and when it allowed the State to impeach Pouncy’s expert using judicial findings about the expert set forth in a previous, unrelated trial. We hold that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on the definition of “personality disorder” and that the error was not harmless. Accordingly, a new trial is required. While this issue is dispositive, we *386also address the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. State v. GuloyWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
  4. State v. BrownWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State v. ScottWashington Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. State v. IshWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  2. In re the Detention of CoeWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  3. In Re Detention of PouncyWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  4. In re the Detention of TicesonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  5. State v. FloraCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011

20 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