State Of Washington, V. P.p.-j.
81758-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 19, 2021Background
- In late July 2020, multiple acquaintances reported that P.P.-J. was acting erratically; a crisis responder found him manic and altered.
- Seattle Police observed extensive property damage at his apartment (DCR estimated > $10,000). A commissioner authorized a 72-hour detention on July 30, 2020.
- A probable-cause hearing for a 14-day involuntary commitment was held August 11, 2020; the court informed P.P.-J. he would not have a jury at that hearing but could have one at later recommitment hearings.
- The court found by a preponderance that P.P.-J. presented a likelihood of serious harm to others/property and was gravely disabled under RCW 71.05.020(23), and ordered involuntary treatment not to exceed 14 days; he was detained July 31–Aug 19, 2020.
- P.P.-J. appealed, arguing the probable-cause hearing deprived him of a constitutional jury-trial right under Wash. Const. art. I, § 21; the Court of Appeals affirmed based on prior precedent distinguishing short-term commitment hearings from historical jury-tried indefinite commitments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a jury trial is required at a probable-cause hearing for a 14-day involuntary commitment | P.P.-J.: Washington Constitution guarantees jury trial; the probable-cause hearing deprived him of that right | State/Court: No jury required; statute RCW 71.05.240(4)(a) authorizes non-jury probable-cause hearings and historical practice shows no jury right for short-term detentions | Held: No constitutional jury right at the 14-day probable-cause hearing; affirming established precedent |
| Whether temporary loss of rights (e.g., firearm possession) mandates a jury trial | P.P.-J.: Loss of firearm rights and potential criminal implications support requiring jury | State/Court: Similar civil restrictions in other contexts (e.g., DV protection orders) do not trigger jury right; statutory safeguards exist | Held: Such collateral consequences do not convert the probable-cause hearing into a jury-trial right proceeding |
| Whether the appeal is moot or the claim forfeited for not raising it below | P.P.-J.: (implicit) challenge remains despite release | State/Court: Appellate review is permissible | Held: Not moot—reversal could affect future use of the commitment in other proceedings; court also exercises discretion to consider the unpreserved constitutional claim because it raises an important unresolved question |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Det. of M.W., 185 Wn.2d 633, 374 P.3d 1123 (2016) (distinguishing short, periodic involuntary-commitment scheme from historical indefinite commitments and rejecting jury-right claim)
- In re Det. of S.E., 199 Wn. App. 609, 400 P.3d 1271 (2017) (applying two-part historical test to hold no jury right for probable-cause 14‑day detention)
- Blackmon v. Blackmon, 155 Wn. App. 715, 230 P.3d 233 (2010) (no jury right for domestic violence protection order proceedings despite firearm-surrender consequences)
- State v. Mayfield, 192 Wn.2d 871, 434 P.3d 58 (2019) (acknowledging appellate review of constitutional claims not raised below when they present important unresolved legal questions)