In re the Detention of: G.W., 34199-2

The State petitioned in 2016 for up to 180 days' involuntary commitment of G.W., alleging he was gravely disabled due to a mental disorder and that no less restrictive alternative existed; the petition did not allege dangerousness to others.
Pretrial, G.W. moved to exclude testimony about a 1998 shooting in Ohio; the court allowed evidence he had pled not guilty by reason of insanity and was hospitalized for 10 years but barred specific facts about a firearm or the charge.
At trial a State witness violated the in limine order by mentioning a "violent episode" and "guns and a shootout," and later referenced firearms; objections were sustained but no limiting instruction was requested or given.
G.W. moved orally for a mistrial during a break; the trial court denied the motion, noting objections were timely, details were limited, and the testimony was not tied to dangerousness. The court offered a limiting instruction if requested—none was requested.
In closing, the State argued release could lead to serious harm or death; G.W. did not object to that remark. The jury found G.W. gravely disabled and committed him for 180 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying mistrial after an in limine violation revealing prior firearm-related conduct	The in limine violation was serious and likely prejudiced the jury into committing G.W. out of fear, so a mistrial was required	The testimony was limited, not probative of issues before the jury (no dangerousness claim), objections were sustained, and no reasonable likelihood of prejudice existed	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Whether the State's closing argument that G.W. "could end up dead" was improper misconduct	Such a statement was inflammatory and could have unfairly influenced the jury	The statement was a permissible inference from testimony about risks to G.W.'s health if released prematurely	Not improper; comment was a fair inference from testimony, affirming conviction

State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (2012) (standard for abuse of discretion in denying mistrial)
Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636 (1989) (review standard quoted for trial-court discretion)
State v. Garcia, 177 Wn. App. 769 (2013) (reversal requires substantial likelihood that irregularity affected verdict)
State v. Thompson, 90 Wn. App. 41 (1998) (in limine violations can be serious trial irregularities)
State v. Magana, 197 Wn. App. 189 (2016) (in limine violation does not always require mistrial)
State v. Jones, 101 Wn.2d 113 (1984) (prejudice from prior convictions lessened by lack of similarity)
State v. Brown, 113 Wn.2d 520 (1989) (overruled Jones on other grounds)
State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273 (1989) (curative instructions can be effective for bad-act evidence)
State v. Miles, 73 Wn.2d 67 (1968) (situations where curative instruction may be ineffective)
State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51 (1991) (permissible to argue reasonable inferences from testimony in closing)