In Re The Detention Of M.s., 492 P.3d 882

The State filed a Chapter 71.05 RCW petition on January 23, 2020 seeking a 180‑day recommitment of M.S. as gravely disabled; an evidentiary hearing occurred on January 30, 2020.
M.S. was present with counsel and the trial court proceeded without empaneling a jury; there is no record of a preliminary appearance or other prior proceedings on appeal.
A Western State Hospital psychologist testified M.S. has schizoaffective disorder, lacks a rational understanding of need for treatment, and would not meet basic health and safety needs if released.
M.S. testified he wanted release and could financially support himself and access outpatient care.
The trial court found by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that M.S. is gravely disabled, ordered up to 180 days involuntary treatment, and denied M.S.’s motion to revise.
M.S. appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to advise him of his statutory right to a jury trial and obtain a waiver on the record, and (2) he had a constitutional right to a jury trial on a 180‑day recommitment requiring a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court violated statutory right by not advising M.S. of jury right and taking waiver under former RCW 71.05.300	Lee: M.S. was not notified of statutory jury right and no waiver was obtained	State: Issue not preserved; M.S. raised it first on appeal and did not show constitutional magnitude to excuse preservation	Court refused to reach statutory‑notice merits because issue was raised only on appeal and M.S. failed to show a manifest constitutional error
Whether M.S. has a constitutional right to a jury trial for a 180‑day recommitment requiring a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver	M.S.: 180‑day involuntary detention implicates jury right; waiver must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary on the record	State: Historical/right‑at‑1889 test shows constitutional jury right attached only to indefinite commitments; short, periodic recommitments do not trigger it	Court held no constitutional right to jury trial for 180‑day recommitment and declined to impose criminal‑style waiver requirements; affirmed commitment order

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (established that civil commitment is a significant liberty deprivation and set due‑process context)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (articulated the three‑part balancing test for procedural due process)
State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256 (framework for RAP 2.5(a)(3) manifest constitutional error review)
State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wn.2d 578 (discussed standards for raising constitutional error for the first time on appeal)
State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 (court may not assume an asserted error is constitutional in magnitude)
In re Det. of Fair, 167 Wn.2d 357 (standards for de novo review of legal and constitutional issues in commitment cases)
In re Det. of M.W., 185 Wn.2d 633 (held short, periodic civil commitments differ from indefinite commitments for purposes of constitutional jury right)
In re Det. of S.E., 199 Wn. App. 609 (discussed historical test and held no jury right for 14‑day probable cause hearing)
In re Det. of C.B., 9 Wn. App. 2d 179 (held Washington Constitution does not provide a jury right for 90‑day gravely disabled commitments)
State v. Wheaton, 121 Wn.2d 347 (explained requirement to show constitutional magnitude to bypass preservation)