a mental illness the jury was never told that they had to find that he had a mental illness the definition of a person subject to involuntary mission is found in the section five death was actually one one nine in the  instructions read that was fine it will be subject to involuntary mission if because of his mental illness he is unable to provide for his basic physical eight in the same was true the respondent will be found subject to involuntary mission because of his mental illness he has recently expected to inflict serious physical harm upon someone in the near future  six thirty six of the record in order to find a response subject to involuntary mission the state must prove either one or both the phone propositions and again the same language is used here because of his individual mentally ill mean there isn't even a mean i guess you get points for me from candor if you're good you're good with my position so i'm phrasing it wrong but i think this isn't close case on his it doesn't automatically follow that we reversed because these instructions could complied to the jury the middle of all this was already given your honor i think that there was only  she gets at the secondary question your honor it's my contention that because of the way that it was phrased there with underlying current presumption that we all know this guy has a mental illness but now all we have to do is find whether he's can take care of himself or whether he's a danger to himself or others and so it's hard to know exactly what the jury might have bought but i could easily courts assuming that and even the parties are saying that he is mentally ill and our only job is to find out whether he care for myself or if he's a doctor and obviously the way that i phrased my rolling back in their chairs or coming forward more closely so they can listen intently testimony which is you know out of a textbook about that they probably do yes but my my point is that i don't think that they necessarily need definition of a mental illness because the definition of a mental illness is an emotional disorder that substantially impairs or sense thought perception of reality emotional process judgment behavior or ability to call  again i have to fall back on that this may and may just be seen as odd or eccentric well is it permissible understanding that time is always the clock is always an issue in the middle health case i assume the jury was entitled to know him as was test right it's been six months to appreciate your treatment and he's been previously diagnosed we know that about this is it a first time shot or comey of person coming in with a clean slate in the state doing its ordinarily and now job of proving mental health case yeah but does it really matter given the way did you have it so is there a case that says if the jury if they're not specifically instructed on that element we have to reverse they're going to mill health case because there are so few and he's tried to jury  other cases i know there are other cases i'm sorry i just recite present time but oh i know to say is that i know that that mental home cases are criminal cases i know i know clearly does fall within the public interest exception to this doctrine i know that i haven't been asked about that but i would just like to point out that i believe that perhaps all three exceptions to the probably not going to be enough to fix the problem you know it's probably going to have to be done over and over again but i'm afraid that if this situation passed up it's this chance to sacrosanct and the stevenson court back in one nine hundred seventy seven determined what burden of proof apply to these cases and i think that just as they needed to determine that in one nine hundred seventy seven or what burden of proof was i think in two thousand and ten we need to set forth what are our proper instructions so that there will not be mistakes made the juries will be instructed and so that the juries hopefully would be properly instructed on the law and apply that to the evidence in the case of thank you very much but if you can perhaps a public interest exception to the stockroom however i would point out that in order to establish that you're going to have show that there is a need for this court issued an order in this particular area so as to guide public officers future and i would be certain court pick at position in this matter because the only justification for that i can see is that there is not an ip i structured on this issue everybody agreed this was a fair or station of law and if you take it as a whole the jury instructions i think it is a fairly station we can debate about whether you know additional language might be better have clear but i don't think the language used in this instance rises to the level of an improper instruction i think you have to look at jury instructions take it all and when you see the concessions made by response she agrees that properly instructed but now we're going to look at the evidence and we're going to basically take the place of the jury here on you and say that no reasonable jury could have found if that's true why wasn't something jeff green leaves ever given a jury if the evidence was overwhelming perhaps into you know coming out exceptions to try to do good in this particular case you have causing i think yourself a lot of harm done down the road because you can't see the ways in which these exceptions are going to use  destruction is incomplete or and here we're talking about a narrow area of the law where there may be frequency of jury trials but they still are not the norm the ross trial quirks need to be reminded in particular in mental health cases and this is real law this is a legal case where you actually have to ask questions and get case it's well you know you get a slap together jury instructions now and i'm i understand they may be overburdened and overworked and thrust into a position