evolving issue and that is the nature of the mental disorder that is required for the climate under the sexual predators of the state has raised the question of whether this matter was the issue as presented on appeal was properly presented to the district court and to the state courts and i just wanted to identify what the problem is and believe that it was your indeed satisfied the requirement for civil commitment under the constitutional standard of due process as identified by cases like to share and that in fact is a case that was cited in both kansas versus hendrix justify civil commitment is whether the person has of alyson all that is a control problem something that causes him to be unable to prevent himself from committing acts of sexual violence be difficulty in the mental health community is whether the disorders that are that  identifies are indeed matters solely of the ability to control versus disorders that may be congenital or environmentally a product of one's upbringing and  reconstituted and basically what he did but the magistrate didn't i don't know that it was reasonable was to take parts of ground seven and parts or ground fourteen and lump them all because they all had to do with the jury's becomes clear when one reads crane and that i think is the problem that we have and that is one of the issues that the state reasons but i do think that basically the claim is raised and argued and in a motion for partial summary judgment by previous counsel are specifically the notion of share and the notion of whether personality disorder by itself can suffice for civil commitment whether it satisfies  dangerousness component component it was addressed in the district court i should also note at the state courts in rates around which is a case that the state's rights the washington supreme court has addressed this in the context of other verdicts in other sexual predator act i call them prosecutions in cases so even though i know that there is generally a view that these issues should not be raised in this context first of personality disorder that rendered him likely to commit actually violent acts in the future the definition of mental involved an emotional or volitional component and i really emotional and really emotional or volitional component as divine dividing the disorder between the kind of disorder that psychiatry is identify it what do you think should have been in there in addition well i think the issue that crane brings really brings to mind is whether this sufficiently told the jury that they needed to find it was an uncontrollable i don't understand this seems pretty strong to me which predisposes the person to the commission of criminal sexual acts who in a degree constitute such person and then it seems to me that a stronger  know that i believe it has anything to do with the ability to control i guess i read that as having to do with the degree of danger that the person creates to the community and not necessarily well and not at i do think that the issue of ability to control the phrase is lack of control which comes from crying should be part of the instruction and that it wasn't in this case i think and because the jury didn't excerpts of record five is the to commit instruction which the washington supreme court in the general case found is sufficient to cover crane's requirement for some lack listener control and one of the factors the jury must find is that a mental abnormality or personality disorder makes lewis brock likely doing gaijin predatory acts of sexual violence there was expert testimony wheeler which is set forth in the supplemental excerpts of record which said both the personality disorder and the mental at an analogy suffered by mr brock made it difficult for him to control the behavior instructed well given instruction twelve was given your honor and that is on excerpts of record page six and those combinations of instructions satisfy what brain requires  fact the language instruction ten mirrors what the supreme court held proper in hendricks and which crane essentially reaffirms crane refused to establish a bright line rule crane did not say that the jury must find him being specifically national it simply said that there must be some evidence that the that the and that the person suffers  ability to control his behavior and dressing whether the issue was raised below the there was a due process claim raised in claim seven of the second minute petition but that focuses focused on different aspects of due process rather than the issue raised now that focused on whether the jury had to be unanimous as to whether there was a mental abnormality or unanimous as to whether it was a personality disorder whether there was sufficient evidence to prove either those and whether the prosecutor proved its required burden of proof and the issue being whether by a craving i'm likely to engage in predatory acts whether that was a reasonable doubt as required under law that was not the issue now that is being presented before to this court of whether there had to be specific instructions on the specific crying on the lack of the bushnell control that issue also was not presented to the state courts mr these needs president proceedings in the district court mistake court terminated over a year before the supreme court even issued its decision in craning and the record shows no proof that mr specific jury verdict have to be given to satisfy due process no such rule existed when his judgment became final in one thousand nine hundred five and my position is that it doesn't even exist now under crane crane refused to establish a bright li rule that they have that mr brock asserts at this point raised a little murky it is your right it is in a court specifically said it would leave to the states to define what is mental illness and what is mental abnormality