Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.094 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Upon the conclusion of the evidence in a hearing held pursuant to RCW 71.09.090 or through summary judgment proceedings prior to such a hearing, if the court finds that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find that the conditions set forth in RCW 71.09.092 have been met, the court shall grant a motion by the state for a judgment as a matter of law on the issue of conditional release to a less restrictive alternative.

(2) Whenever the issue of conditional release to a less restrictive alternative is submitted to the jury, the court shall instruct the jury to return a verdict in substantially the following form: Has the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that either: (a) The proposed less restrictive alternative is not in the best interests of respondent; or (b) does not include conditions that would adequately protect the community? Answer: Yes or No.

[ 2001 c 286 s 11; 1995 c 216 s 11.]

Notes:

Recommendations—Application—Effective date—2001 c 286: See notes following RCW 71.09.015.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · leading case: In re the Det. of Skinner, 122 Wash. App. 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re the Det. of Skinner, 122 Wash. App. 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 17× “The State *624 cross-appeals the order denying its motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to former RCW 71.09.094 (1995) and other rulings of the trial court.”

In Re Det. of Skinner, 94 P.3d 981 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 17× “The State cross-appeals the order denying its motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to former RCW 71.09.094 and other rulings of the trial court.”

In re the Det. of Campbell, 124 P.3d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “RCW 71.09.094(1). ¶14 Washington’s SVP statutes contain an additional safeguard against the possible danger to the community of the conditional release of a committed person to an LRA.”

In re the Det. of Capello, 60 P.3d 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “The court noted that RCW 71.09.094 allows the trial court to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence at the conclusion of the less restrictive alternative hearing.”

In re the Det. of Enright, 128 P.3d 1266 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “” RCW 71.09.094(1). f 8 There is no dispute that one of the requirements for conditional release was not met in this case: secured housing for Mr.”

In Re Det. of Jones, 201 P.3d 1066 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “092 conditions would not render RCW 71.09.094 superfluous since discovery regarding a proposed LRA could develop evidence supporting a motion for summary judgment.”

In re the Det. of Mathers, 100 Wash. App. 336 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “More importantly, RCW 71.09.094 allows the trial court to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence at the conclusion of a less restrictive alternative hearing.”

Mathers v. State, 998 P.2d 336 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “More importantly, RCW 71.09.094 allows the trial court to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence at the conclusion of a less restrictive alternative hearing.”

Capello v. State, 60 P.3d 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “The court noted that RCW 71.09.094 allows the trial court to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence at the conclusion of the less restrictive alternative hearing.”

In re the Det. of Halgren, 124 Wash. App. 206 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “3d 981 (2004) (burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies to motion for a judgment as a matter of law under former RCW 71.09.094(1) (1995)). John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr.”

In Re Det. of Halgren, 98 P.3d 1206 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “3d 981 (2004) (burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies to motion for a judgment as a matter of law under former RCW 71.09.094(1)). [22] John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr.”

In Re The Det. Of David James Lewis (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 7× “Due Process Violation Lewis contends that under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the statutory scheme under RCW 71.09.094, the State bears the burden of proof in conditional release trials.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.094(1) — 14 cases

In re the Det. of Skinner, 122 Wash. App. 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The State *624 cross-appeals the order denying its motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to former RCW 71.09.094 (1995) and other rulings of the trial court.”

In Re Det. of Skinner, 94 P.3d 981 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The State cross-appeals the order denying its motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to former RCW 71.09.094 and other rulings of the trial court.”

In re the Det. of Campbell, 124 P.3d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 71.09.094(1). ¶14 Washington’s SVP statutes contain an additional safeguard against the possible danger to the community of the conditional release of a committed person to an LRA.”

In Re Det. of Jones, 201 P.3d 1066 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “092 conditions would not render RCW 71.09.094 superfluous since discovery regarding a proposed LRA could develop evidence supporting a motion for summary judgment.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.094(2) — 6 cases

In Re The Det. Of David James Lewis (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Due Process Violation Lewis contends that under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the statutory scheme under RCW 71.09.094, the State bears the burden of proof in conditional release trials.”

In Re The Det. Of David James Lewis (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

Det. Of Curtis Brogi v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.