At appellant’s hearing to extend his commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO), the trial court instructed the jury that it was a defense to an extension petition that the defendant in a medicated state does not represent a danger, but also instructed the jury that it was the defendant’s burden to prove this defense. The appellate court here reversed, finding that the instruction was prejudicial error. Noble’s claim that medication controlled his mental disorder and rendered him not dangerous was not an affirmative defense, but challenged the elements of the petition.