In Re The Detention Of: S.e.
199 Wash. App. 609
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- S.E. was involuntarily detained at Fairfax Hospital after an incident at a homeless services center in which staff testified she behaved aggressively and struck one case manager in the face.
- Fairfax petitioned under RCW 71.05 for an additional 14-day involuntary commitment for evaluation and treatment after the initial 72-hour period. A probable cause hearing was held within the statutory time frame.
- At the hearing the State bore the burden to prove by a preponderance that S.E., due to mental disorder, presented a likelihood of serious harm to others and was gravely disabled; no statutory right to a jury for the 14-day hearing is provided (a jury is statutorily available for longer commitments).
- The superior court found S.E. posed a significant risk of serious harm and was gravely disabled and ordered the 14-day commitment; S.E. appealed on constitutional and evidentiary grounds.
- The Court of Appeals addressed whether the Washington Constitution requires a jury at RCW 71.05.240 probable cause hearings and whether substantial evidence supported the court’s findings of dangerousness and grave disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Washington Constitution requires a jury at a RCW 71.05.240 probable cause (14-day) hearing | S.E.: territorial-era law preserved a right to jury determination before any detention for insanity; therefore a jury must be seated for the 14‑day probable cause hearing | State: historical practice and statutes show no requirement that juries be seated for short-term pretrial detention hearings; jury right historically attached to later insanity trials, not preliminary hearings | Court: No. Historical inquiry shows no analogous 1889 proceeding requiring a jury; constitution does not require a jury at RCW 71.05.240 hearings. |
| Whether substantial evidence supported the finding S.E. posed a likelihood of serious harm to others | S.E.: testimony and evidence were insufficient to show she presented a substantial risk of serious physical harm | State: testimony of two case managers and hospital physician, plus chart notes and observed behavior, supported the finding | Court: Yes. Credible eyewitness testimony and expert opinion supported the preponderance finding of likely serious harm. |
| Whether substantial evidence supported the finding S.E. was gravely disabled | S.E.: evidence did not show severe deterioration in routine functioning or inability to obtain essential care | State: testimony and medical observations (hygiene problems, delusions, refusal of meds, lice, impaired insight) showed recent loss of control and lack of essential care | Court: Yes. Substantial evidence supported grave disability finding under RCW 71.05.020(17)(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Det. of M.W., 185 Wn.2d 633 (historical test for state constitutional jury right)
- Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636 (method for determining historical scope of jury right)
- In re Quesnell, 83 Wn.2d 224 (role of jury in commitment proceedings)
- In re Ellern, 23 Wn.2d 219 (treatment of jury demand in insanity proceedings)
- Sherwin v. Arveson, 96 Wn.2d 77 (statutory preservation of jury rights from territorial statutes)
- Plancich v. Williamson, 57 Wn.2d 367 (authority to restrain dangerously insane persons at common law)