September 27, 2012 in City

Supreme Court upholds Kevin Coe commitment

By The Spokesman-Review
 
The Spokesman-Review photo

Kevin Coe leaves Spokane County Superior Court in 2008.
(Full-size photo)

Read the Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Kevin Coe can be found here.

The concurrence of Justices Tom Chambers and Charles K. Wiggins can be found here.

The Washington Supreme Court today upheld the sexually violent predator civil commitment of South Hill rapist Kevin Coe, which means he’s exhausted all legal avenues at the state level to win his freedom.

A jury committed Coe in 2008 following a month-long trial. The state moved to commit Coe in 2006 just before his release after serving 25 years in prison on the only rape conviction that survived appeal even though he was suspected in dozens more during a reign of terror that became a best selling crime novel and made-for-television movie.

Coe and his attorneys appealed that commitment on the argument that Superior Court Judge Kathleen O’Connor erred when she allowed assistant attorneys general to introduce evidence from 36 sexual assaults that did not result in criminal charges against Coe. They also contended that he had ineffective counsel and that he deserved a new trial.

“Finding no reversible error in any of Coe’s claims, we affirm his commitment,” Justice Susan Owens wrote for the majority.

However, the justices differed somewhat with the opinion issued by the Division III Court of Appeals, which likewise upheld Coe’s commitment. The justices found error with O’Connor allowing information from a database that tracks similarities in rapes because that information was based on hearsay.

“Regardless, Coe fails to establish prejudice as each crime identified” in the data base was also independently indentified by a prosecution expert, Owens wrote. “While we may disapprove of the Court of Appeals’ reasoning as to why the signature analysis was admissible, we agree that the trial court’s decision to admit the signature analysis … was proper under the unique facts of this case.”

While he agreed with the final decision, Justice Tom Chambers wrote in a concurrence – which was also signed by Justice Charles Wiggins – that he was concerned about allowing the jury to hear about uncharged crimes as part of the civil commitment trial.

“In general, I believe allegations of uncharged crimes should not be admitted into evidence,” Chambers wrote. “Experts should not act as funnels to allow lawyers to get into evidence through their expert opinion what is otherwise inadmissible.”

Yet, Chambers noted that he agreed with the decision to uphold the conviction because of the “unusual elements” of the case.

“In many, though not all, of the uncharged crimes, the perpetrator put fingers into victims’ mouths; attempted to induce the victim to urinate or defecate upon him; and asked personal and offensive questions,” he wrote. “The overwhelming untainted evidence supports the jury’s verdict.”

The decision likely ends Coe’s legal pursuit of exoneration — and any chance of his release — after his arrest in 1981, following dozens of rapes attributed to the South Hill rapist.

A jury originally convicted Coe of four rapes, but all of those convictions were overturned on appeal because Spokane Police detectives used hypnosis during interviews with witnesses. Former Spokane County Prosecutor Don Brockett re-filed the charges, and a second jury in 1985 convicted Coe of three of the original four rape charges.

He appealed and the state Supreme Court eventually overturned two of those convictions in 1988 on the same hypnosis issue. It left Coe with a single conviction for which he served 25 years in prison. Just before his release, the state announced its intent to civilly commit Coe as a sexually violent predator.

Coe remains incarcerated at the state’s Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island, where he has been held since his release from prison in 2006.

Get stories like this in a free daily email


Please keep it civil. Don't post comments that are obscene, defamatory, threatening, off-topic, an infringement of copyright or an invasion of privacy. Read our forum standards and community guidelines.

You must be logged in to post comments. Please log in here or click the comment box below for options.

comments powered by Disqus