Opinion ID: 2632413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Washington precedent also recognizes a fundamental due process right to confrontation

Text: ¶ 49 Not content with ignoring the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority also ignores its own precedent. Before today, any involuntary commitment, whether civil or criminal, required fundamental due process protections. We have held: It is the likelihood of involuntary incarcerationwhether for punishment as an adult for a crime, rehabilitation as a juvenile for delinquency, or treatment and training as a feebleminded or mental incompetentwhich commands observance of the constitutional safeguards of due process. Quesnell v. State, 83 Wash.2d 224, 230, 517 P.2d 568 (1973) (relying on Specht ) (quoting Heryford v. Parker, 396 F.2d 393, 396 (10th Cir.1968).) And these constitutional safeguards of due process include the right of confrontation. Quesnell, 83 Wash.2d at 230, 240 n. 21, 517 P.2d 568 (Such fundamental rights pertinent to the mental illness proceeding include confrontation and cross-examination.). [5] ¶ 50 Quesnell concerned involuntary civil commitment for the mentally ill. But Stout's involuntary confinement may be accomplished only with that process which is due, regardless of motive. [6]