In Re The Detention Of Edward G. Payne, Jr.

Court of Appeals of Washington·Decided May 9, 2023·No. 56894-2·Unpublished

Opinion

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

May 9, 2023

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

In the Matter of the Detention of: No. 56894-2-II

EDWARD GUY PAYNE, JR., UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Petitioner.

MAXA, P.J. – Edward Payne appeals the trial court’s civil commitment order committing him as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under chapter 71.09 RCW. One of the elements that the State was required to prove to obtain the commitment order was that Payne had committed a “recent overt act.” Payne argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt.

We conclude that the State produced sufficient evidence that Payne had committed a recent overt act. Therefore, we affirm the civil commitment order.

FACTS1

Prior Offenses In 1986, Payne pled guilty to indecent liberties against a child under the age of 14. The victim of this offense was his 11-year-old cousin, and the offense occurred when Payne was at his cousin’s house helping the family with yardwork.

In 1987, Payne pled guilty to two more counts of indecent liberties. These charges were based on sexual contact with a six-year-old girl and a two-year-old boy, both of whom Payne had babysat. These offenses occurred while Payne was on community supervision for the 1986 offense.

In 1996, Payne pled guilty to communication with a minor for immoral purposes. This offense involved his adult girlfriend’s nine-year-old sister, and he was living in their home at the time of the offense.

In 2008, Payne pled guilty to second degree child molestation. The victim was a friend’s 12-year-old daughter. Community Custody Violations Payne was released into community custody in May 2019 after serving his time in confinement for the 2008 conviction. Upon his release, Payne was required to wear a GPS ankle monitor and was advised of numerous community custody conditions. These conditions included (1) having no access to the internet, web cams, or any device that could be used to take photographs; (2) avoiding places where children congregate, including shopping malls; and (3)

1 Because we are addressing the sufficiency of the evidence, these facts are construed in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102, 105, 330 P.3d 182 (2014).

requiring Payne to advise his community corrections officer (CCO) of any romantic relationships to verify that no victim-age children were involved.

On September 17, 2019, Payne’s GPS ankle monitor alerted his CCO that Payne had entered the Tacoma Mall though the food court entrance in violation of his community custody conditions. A children’s play area and the restrooms are located in the food court area of the mall.

Security video showed Payne enter the mall’s food court area, walk directly to the restroom, remain in the restroom for seven to eight minutes, and then walk directly through the food court tables and out the mall door. The security video did not show Payne approach the children’s play area. Other public restrooms are located in other businesses outside of the mall in the same area.

In light of this violation, four CCOs contacted Payne outside of his transitional housing.

Payne was on his cell phone, and he told the CCOs that he was texting with one of his online girlfriends. Payne also informed the CCOs that he had eight girlfriends.

One of the CCOs confiscated the cell phone, which had a camera. A search of Payne’s phone revealed texts, emails, and social media conversations between Payne and several different women who appeared to be adults. Many of these conversations were sexually explicit.

In one conversation, Payne stated, “Well, to be honest, I wish I had anybody. I want to have sex with somebody so badly. I wouldn’t care who they were as long as they were female, that is.” 7 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 840. In conversations with one of the women, Payne requested that she send him photographs of herself at the ages 3, 5, 7. 9, 11, 13, and 15.

Payne’s CCO contacted one of the women with whom Payne had been communicating to determine what her relationship with Payne was and if she had any minor children. The CCO determined that this woman had a daughter and that Payne never told her that he was a registered sex offender.

The CCOs also found photographs on Payne’s phone, on a social media account, and a website account. The images on the phone included sexually explicit photographs of himself and other people who all appeared to be adults. But the social media page contained photos of young girls who appeared to be minors around 11 to 12 years old, some anime2 characters, and girls in swimwear.

In addition, the CCOs found evidence that Payne was looking at numerous pornographic websites on his phone. His favored videos on one of his accounts included images of small females with no pubic hair and small breasts and themes that included “gang bang rapes and young females tied up,” and “daddy/daughters having sex.” 7 RP at 857. Payne also frequented websites featuring “hentai,” a form of animated pornography in which the characters “appear to be younger in age with exaggerated genitalia.” 7 RP at 854.

Payne’s CCO issued a violation report alleging that Payne had violated his community custody conditions by (1) being in a location where minors congregate, (2) having access to the internet or web cams or any device used to photograph, (3) possessing or processing sexually explicit material, (4) failing to notify his CCOs of any romantic relationship, (5) failing to

2 Anime is “a style of animation originating in Japan that is characterized by stark colorful graphics depicting vibrant characters in action-filled plots often with fantastic or futuristic themes.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, https://www.merriamwebster .com/dictionary/anime (last visited April 26, 2019).

provide verification of entering and completing an approved sexual deviancy treatment program, (6) failing to make minimum payments toward his legal financial obligations (LFOs), and (7) failing to make payments toward the cost of supervision fees. Payne pled guilty to or was found guilty of all of the alleged violations except for the sex offender treatment violation. Payne was found not guilty of the treatment violation because he was unable to pay for treatment and was not willfully noncompliant. Involuntary Commitment Proceedings The State subsequently petitioned for involuntary civil commitment of Payne as an SVP under chapter 71.09 RCW. The matter proceeded to a jury trial.

At the trial, the State presented the evidence summarized above. In addition, clinical psychologist Amy Phenix, Ph.D. testified for the State and clinical psychologist Brian Abbott, Ph.D. testified for Payne.

Phenix diagnosed Payne as having pedophilia and antisocial personality disorder. She testified that pedophilia involves a sexual attraction to prepubescent children and that these children generally are 13 years old or younger. Phenix stated that some individuals with pedophilia can also be sexually attracted to adults. And she testified that having antisocial personality disorder can increase the likelihood that someone attracted to children would act on their attraction because the individual would not have the ability to understand that their actions would hurt the child and they would instead focus on meeting their own needs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Re The Detention Of Edward G. Payne, Jr., (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

In Re The Detention Of Edward G. Payne, Jr. (In Re The Detention Of Edward G. Payne, Jr.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. McNutt
101 P.3d 422 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2004)
Detention of Marshall v. State
125 P.3d 111 (Washington Supreme Court, 2005)
State v. Homan
330 P.3d 182 (Washington Supreme Court, 2014)
In re the Detention of Anderson
368 P.3d 162 (Washington Supreme Court, 2016)
State v. McNutt
124 Wash. App. 344 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2004)