In Conservatorship of Walker (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 1082, the trial court rejected the defendant's request for an instruction that a person is presumed not gravely disabled unless the People prove otherwise. Division One of this appellate district stated: "A proposed conservatee has a constitutional right to a finding based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Without deciding whether the court has a sua sponte duty to so instruct, we are satisfied that, on request, a court is required to instruct in language emphasizing a proposed conservatee is presumed to not be gravely disabled until the state carries its burden of proof." The court, nevertheless, found the error harmless because the jury was given complete instructions on the "effect of the presumption." The facts also overwhelmingly supported the jury's finding of grave disability. (See Conservatorship of Walker, supra, 196 Cal. App. 3d at page 1094.) Division One held that CALJIC No. 2.01 should be given in a civil proceeding to appoint a conservator for a mentally ill person under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act ( 5000 et seq.). The court noted that appointment of a conservator under the act involves a serious deprivation of the liberty rights of the conservatee and must be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (Walker, supra, at pp. 1093, 1098.)