In the Matter of the Detention of: L.T.S., 34625-1

Appellant L.T.S. was the subject of an involuntary civil commitment jury trial; four mental health professionals testified he was gravely disabled and needed a least restrictive alternative (LRA) treatment order.
The trial court gave standard definitional instructions and a non‑pattern Instruction 8 stating a person may be found gravely disabled despite stabilization during treatment and listing nonexclusive factors (past patterns, prior decompensation off treatment, discontinuing medication, lack of appreciation of need for medication, stated intent to stop medication, high probability of relapse without court‑ordered medication).
Defense counsel did not object to Instruction 8 at trial and argued the instruction to the jury in closing, asserting L.T.S. was now stable and would take medication.
The jury found L.T.S. gravely disabled and ordered 180 days of outpatient LRA treatment; L.T.S. appealed solely claiming Instruction 8 was an unconstitutional judicial comment on the evidence.
The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the unchallenged definitional instruction constituted manifest constitutional error under RAP 2.5(a)(3) and whether, if erroneous, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Instruction 8 constituted an unconstitutional judicial comment on the evidence (manifest constitutional error)	Instruction 8 improperly communicated the judge's view and limited the evidence the jury could consider, effectively commenting on the facts	Instruction 8 was a nonexclusive definitional instruction that did not favor evidence, did not remove factual issues from the jury, and the defense used it in closing to rebut the State	Instruction 8 did not constitute a prohibited comment on the evidence; alternatively, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; verdict affirmed

State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682 (discusses waiver of jury instruction objections and need for timely objections)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (defines "manifest" constitutional error standard for RAP 2.5(a)(3))
State v. Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825 (explains what constitutes a judicial comment on the evidence)
State v. Becker, 132 Wn.2d 54 (instruction that removes factual matter from the jury can be a comment on the evidence)
State v. Hermann, 138 Wn. App. 596 (instruction favoring one theory of value over others found to be error)
State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709 (constitutional errors are presumed harmful; harmlessness analysis)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)