term “SVP determination trial” to refer to that component. 2 The State also argues that Post opened the door to the testimony, but this is meritless. The trial court had already denied Post’s motions in limine to exclude such evidence and a ‘lawyer who introduces preemptive testimony only after losing a battle to exclude it cannot be said to introduce the evidence voluntarily.” State v. Vy Thang, 145 Wn.2d 630, 648, 41 P.3d 1159 (2002). Post thus did not waive his right to challenge the evidence on appeal. 3 We need not and do not decide the precise contours of res judicata and collateral estoppel in these circumstances, but we note that courts of other jurisdictions have already addressed the issue. See Turner v. Superior Court, 105 Cal. App. 4th 1046, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 300 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Chapman, 444 Mass. 15, 825
holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody holding that a subsequent petition may be filed upon a showing of a change in circumstances holding that final order for alimony may be modified by trial court on showing of substantial change in circumstances of either party holding that a second or subsequent state petition for postconviction relief filed according to the procedural rules of the state constitutes a properly filed application  without regard to the merits of the petition