In Re The Detention Of W.c.r.t., 82548-8

W.T., a 65-year-old with long‑standing schizoaffective disorder and erotomanic delusions, has a history of repeated hospitalizations and stalking/protection‑order violations.
He was found criminally incompetent in 2017, committed to Western State Hospital (WSH), and repeatedly recommitted in consecutive 180‑day periods.
In Oct. 2019 WSH petitioners sought another 180‑day involuntary commitment under RCW 71.05, alleging grave disability; W.T. demanded a jury trial.
Treating clinicians testified W.T. exhibited erotomanic and grandiose delusions, episodic refusal or reduction of medications, recent acts reflecting delusions (letters, fixation on staff), and a pattern of decompensation and stalking when released.
The jury found W.T. had a mental disorder, was gravely disabled, and a less‑restrictive alternative was not in the best interests of W.T. or others; the court ordered 180 days’ commitment.
W.T. appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of grave disability under RCW 71.05.020(b), and (2) ineffective assistance because counsel proposed WPI 360.06, which he says diminished the State’s burden of proof. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	W.T.'s Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Did evidence support finding W.T. was gravely disabled under RCW 71.05.020(b)?	Evidence insufficient—no recent baseline showing severe deterioration; functioning at WSH showed stability; prior hospitalizations mostly remote.	Doctors proved recent loss of volitional control, acts reflecting erotomanic delusions, medication nonadherence, and a pattern of decompensation if released.	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports grave disability under prong (b).
Ineffective assistance: Was counsel deficient for proposing WPI 360.06 that allegedly diminished the State’s burden?	Counsel was ineffective for offering a pattern instruction that may dilute the burden of proof for clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.	Use of an established WPI is not per se deficient; prior authority did not render the instruction invalid; counsel’s conduct not objectively unreasonable here.	Affirmed: no ineffective assistance—proposal of the pattern instruction was not deficient under the circumstances.

In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196 (1986) (definition of "gravely disabled," requirements for involuntary commitment under prongs (a) and (b))
In re Det. of A.M., 17 Wn. App. 2d 331 (2021) (elements required to prove grave disability under RCW 71.05.020(b))
In re Det. of M.K., 168 Wn. App. 621 (2012) (use of prior commitments and appellate review standards; mootness consideration)
Involuntary Treatment of A.J., 196 Wn. App. 79 (2016) (critique of WPI 360.06 and observation that pattern instruction could be improved)
State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856 (2009) (counsel ineffective for proposing a pattern jury instruction that lowered burden of proof where prior decisions put counsel on notice)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)