In re the Involuntary Treatment of: L.T.S.
197 Wash. App. 230
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Petitioner L.T.S. was receiving court-ordered less restrictive alternative (LRA) outpatient treatment; providers petitioned to extend LRA for 180 days alleging grave disability due to mental disorder.
- Evidence at trial showed a repeated pattern of decompensation when L.T.S. stopped medication, resulting in repeated hospitalizations, law-enforcement contacts, jail, or diversion.
- Trial court instructed the jury (Instruction 10) that "great weight" must be given to prior history/pattern of decompensation and treatment discontinuation resulting in repeated hospitalizations or peace-officer interventions (language mirroring RCW 71.05.285).
- L.T.S. did not object at trial to Instruction 10, testified he was not gravely disabled, and the jury found him mentally disordered and gravely disabled; court ordered 180 days LRA treatment.
- On appeal L.T.S. argued Instruction 10 constituted an unconstitutional judicial comment on the evidence under art. IV, § 16 of the Washington Constitution; State did not contest mootness and the court held the appeal was not moot because prior commitments can be used against a person in future commitment proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Instruction 10 unconstitutionally commented on the evidence by directing the jury to give "great weight" to prior decompensation and treatment discontinuation | Instruction 10 impermissibly told the jury how much weight to give particular evidence, violating art. IV, § 16 | Instruction 10 accurately stated substantive law (RCW 71.05.285) and therefore was a lawful statement of the law, not a personal judicial comment | Instruction 10 was a valid statement of substantive law and did not violate art. IV, § 16; affirmed |
| Whether the appeal is moot because the 180-day commitment expired | Past commitment still has collateral consequences for future commitment hearings, so appeal is not moot | Same; State did not argue mootness | Appeal is not moot due to adverse future-consequences rule |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Detention of R. W., 98 Wn. App. 140 (1999) (held jury instruction based on legislative-intent provision was an unconstitutional comment on the evidence)
- Hamilton v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 111 Wn.2d 569 (1988) (instruction accurately stating legal rule is not a prohibited judicial comment)
- City of Seattle v. Smiley, 41 Wn. App. 189 (1985) (instruction mirroring ordinance was a statement of law, not a comment on evidence)
- In re Det. of MK., 168 Wn. App. 621 (2012) (prior commitment orders can supply collateral consequences and keep appeals live)