In Re Detention of Morgan
253 P.3d 394
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Morgan was adjudicated SVP and civilly committed after a 2008 jury verdict.
- A 2006 competency hearing found Morgan not competent to assist his counsel in SVP proceedings.
- A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent Morgan's interests in 2006.
- In June–August 2006, the court and counsel discussed forcibly medicating Morgan in chambers; Morgan was not present.
- The court ultimately ordered involuntary medication after review of medical and GAL input (written December 2006).
- Morgan challenged the 2006 chambers meeting on rights grounds and the overall due process of SVP proceedings conducted while he was allegedly incompetent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to attend 2006 chambers meeting | Morgan had right to attend to assist counsel | Attendance unnecessary for purely legal matter | No error; no right to attend purely legal chambers. |
| Public trial rights at in-chambers meeting | Open proceedings required under article I, section 10 | Chambers meeting addressed ministerial/legal issues | No public trial violation; ministerial nature excluded public-closure requirement. |
| Competency during SVP proceedings | Due process requires competency to participate | Competency not required; state interest outweighs | Due process does not require competency during SVP proceedings. |
| Involuntary medication during proceedings | Forced medication without necessity violated rights | Record insufficient to review; preservation lacking | Issue not preserved for review; cannot be decided on direct appeal. |
| Paraphilia NOS diagnosis validity | Diagnosis not generally accepted and thus invalid | Diagnosis admissible and routinely used | Not preserved for Frye challenge; diagnosis admissible per existing practice. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pers. Restraint of Pirtle, 136 Wash.2d 467 (Wash. 1998) (right to be present depends on relation to defense; not for in-chambers legal matters)
- State v. Sadler, 147 Wash.App. 97 (Wash. App. 2008) (public trial right does not extend to purely ministerial/legal matters)
- In re Det. of Greenwood, 130 Wash.App. 277 (Wash. App. 2005) (SVP civil proceedings are civil, not criminal; competency not required in Greenwood analysis)
- Moore v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 802 (Cal. 2010) (due process does not require mental competence in SVP commitment proceedings)
- Post, 145 Wash.App. 728 (Wash. App. 2008) (Frye challenge not preserved where not raised at trial (paraphilia NOS))