Return to CALJIC Part 3-4 – Contents
F 4.15 n1 Restoration Of Sanity: Burden And Elements (PC 1026.2 and PC 1026.5).
Foucha v. Louisiana (92) 504 US 71 [118 LEd2d 437; 112 SCt 1780] set forth new standards which necessitate fundamental modifications of the standard instructions predicated upon PC 1026.2 and PC 1026.5. These modifications include: changing the burden of proof from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence (Id. at 445 and 448); changing the party bearing the burden of proof from the defense to the prosecution (Ibid.) and changing the elements necessary to be proved to establish restoration of sanity from simply being dangerous to the safety of one’s self or the safety of others to being both mentally ill and dangerous to one’s self or the safety of others (Id. at 445, fn 3). The August 1992 CACJ Newsletter notes that Richard Beswick was recently involved in a restoration case where the instructions were so modified. [The modified instructions as given in Mr. Beswick’s case may be obtained through FORECITE. Ask for Instruction Bank # I-851.]
[Research Note: See FORECITE BIBLIO 4.15]
F 4.15 n2 Restoration Of Sanity: Self-Medication (PC 1026.2 and PC 1026.5).
Regarding ¶ 4 of CJ 4.15 (1989 Revision) and the effect of self-medication, see People v. Bolden (90) 217 CA3d 1591, 1599-1603 [266 CR 724].
[Research Note: See FORECITE BIBLIO 4.15]
F 4.15 n3 Restoration Of Sanity: Defendant’s Burden As To Out-Patient Status (PC 1026.2 and PC 1026.5).
In a restoration of sanity hearing, the applicant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (PC 1026.2(k).) However, the statute does not specify who has the burden of proof in an out-patient status hearing. (PC 1600, et seq.) In People v. Sword (94) 29 CA4th 614, 621, 624 [34 CR2d 810], the court held that the statute may be constitutionally interpreted to impose the burden of proof upon the defendant.
[Research Note: See FORECITE BIBLIO 4.15]
F 4.15 n4 Restoration Of Sanity: Due Process And Equal Protection Challenges Rejected.
In People v. Wilder (95) 33 CA4th 90, 98 [39 CR2d 247], the court rejected due process and equal protection challenges to the California recommitment procedures under PC 1026.5.
F 4.15 n5 Restoration Of Sanity: Jury Must Decide Factual Issue Regarding “Mental Disease, Defect or Disorder.”
People v. Superior Court (Blakely) (97) 60 CA4th 202 [70 CR2d 388] PC 1026.5(b) requires a mental disease, defect or disorder which represents a substantial danger of harm to others. When it is alleged that the defendant has “Axis II anti-social personality disorder,” the jury must determine, as a question of fact, whether such a personality disorder is a “mental disorder” which is sufficient for extending the defendant’s commitment. (See also Justice Werdegar’s concurrence, joined by Justice Kennard in Hubbart v. Superior Court (99) 19 C4th 1138, 1179 [81 CR2d 492].)
F 4.15 n6 Restoration Of Sanity: Dismissal Of Sanity Phase Pursuant To PC 1385(a).
After two juries were unable to reach agreement as to defendant’s sanity as to a number of counts, the trial court erred (1) in dismissing the sanity phase pursuant to PC 1385(a) on the ground that the defendant would be unable to meet his burden of proof on that issue, and (2) in declaring the defendant sane. (See People v. Hernandez (2000) 22 C4th 512 [93 CR2d 509].).
F 4.15 n7 Restoration Of Sanity: Whether Defense Counsel Can Waive Jury On NGI Commitment Extension Trial Without Personal Waiver By Defendant (PC 1026.5).
(See People v. Powell (2004) 114 CA4th 1153, 1157-59 [counsel may waive jury trial over client objection in a “not guilty by reason of insanity” commitment extension trial]; see also, People v. Angeletakis (92) 5 CA4th 963 [incompetent NGI defendant must act through counsel].)
F 4.15 n8 Restoration Of Sanity: The Prosecution Calling The Defendant As A Witness At An Extension Proceeding.
At a PC 1026 extension proceeding, the privilege against self-incrimination applies so the prosecution is not permitted to call the defendant as a witness. (See People v. Haynie (2004) 116 CA4th 1224.)