 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Smith10/6/2004
Kenneth Purdy Smith appeals from the order of the trial court recommitting him to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment after a jury determined him to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen.Code, § 2960 et seq.) [FN1] Smith contends the court abused its discretion by requiring him to be shackled during trial and by failing to consider outpatient placement. Although we agree that shackling Smith was not justified, we conclude there was no prejudice because the jury did not see the restraints. Accordingly, we affirm.
FN1. All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
Facts
Smith was committed to Patton State Hospital after violating his parole by committing assault with a deadly weapon in 1992. He has been in psychiatric hospitals since 1995. Previously, Smith has been convicted of battery of a police officer, assault with a deadly weapon, obstructing/resisting an executive officer, and drunk driving. In addition, he has an extensive history of illicit drug and alcohol abuse. He currently suffers from schizoaffective disorder, a severe mental disorder marked by paranoia.
One of Smith's psychiatrists, Dr. Anca Chiritescu, testified that in the two months prior to the hearing, he observed Smith act out his paranoid ideations. Smith "has been on the verge of attacking staff members [of the hospital]." Doctor Chiritescu testified that Smith has needed a show of force by many staff members, supplemental medication, and a "safe place" to calm him down on different occasions within several months of the hearing. Accordingly, Dr. Chiritescu testified that Smith represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.
Smith's primary psychotherapist, Valerie Evans, testified that he told her he would love to kill someone, that he really wants to hurt someone, and that he was afraid of what he might do. Evans stated that Smith has committed numerous rule violations and needed extra medication to calm him down on several occasions.
Doctor Robert Beilin, a representative from the Forensic Conditional Release Program (CONREP), interviewed Smith twice before the hearing and testified that Smith is not ready to be released into the community because he continues to be paranoid. Doctor Beilin testified that Smith believes other patients and staff are "plotting against him" and the United States is a dictatorship. Doctor Beilin also testified that Smith has been threatening to the hospital staff and its patients, stating that he would "like to kill someone."
In addition to his usual daily regimen of psychotropic medications, during the preceding year Smith has needed additional medicine to calm him down when he was out of control. Smith has failed to attend mandatory drug and alcohol programs, even though he was directed to do so. Doctor Beilin believed he is unlikely to take his medications unless he is supervised. Because of head injuries Smith has sustained, Smith would have difficulty following his elaborate daily medication regimen on his own even if he wanted to, and his condition would likely deteriorate.
*2 After the jury returned a "special verdict," the court ordered recommitment and this appeal ensued.
Discussion
Leg Restraints
Smith contends the court abused its discretion by requiring him to be placed in hidden leg shackles during trial without a hearing on the issue or evidence that would justify such restraints. Smith contends we should review this assignment of error under rules applicable to criminal trials, even though he concedes that MDO cases are civil matters. Our Supreme Court has not determined what standard of review applies to the shackling of an MDO defendant. In the absence of such guidance, we shall assume that the more stringent standards of c
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|