In re the Detention of Morgan, 330 P.3d 774

Morgan, diagnosed with schizophrenia, faced a 2008 SVP commitment trial after competency concerns arose.
A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed to represent Morgan’s interests during proceedings.
The trial court ordered involuntary medication to control Morgan’s delusions for trial purposes.
Morgan was found to be an SVP by a unanimous jury and is confined in the Special Commitment Center.
Morgan challenged the commitment on due process/competency and public-trial grounds; the Court affirmed the commitment.
Pretrial in-chambers discussions regarding involuntary medication occurred with Morgan absent and were later supported by written reports.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must Morgan be competent to stand SVP trial?	Morgan	State	No explicit competency requirement for SVP trial; due process satisfied
Did the in-chambers conference violate the public trial right?	Morgan	State	No; proceedings open on record; no closure of core proceedings

In re Det. of Stout, 159 Wn.2d 357 (2007) (procedural due process protections for SVP proceedings)
In re Young, 122 Wn.2d 1 (1993) ( SVP framework and treatment considerations)
McCuistion, 174 Wn.2d 369 (2012) (extensive protections in SVP statute; supports due process robustness)
In re Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724 (2003) (SVP structural protections and statutory framework)
In re D.F.F., 172 Wn.2d 37 (2011) (open record access and public nature of SVP proceedings)
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (recognizes substantial procedural protections in SVP schemes)
In re Det. of Cubbage, 671 N.W.2d 442 (Iowa 2003) (competency considerations and SVP procedures)