PHYLISS MORRIS,
Public Defender
255 N. D Street, Suite 200
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0931
(909) 383-2418
FAX (909) 388-4207
By:
Bar. No.
Deputy Public Defender
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,Petitioner,
v.
XXXXXXXX,
Respondent. / )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) / CASE NO.:
MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
TO PRECLUDE ANY MENTION OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF A ‘TRUE’ FINDING INCLUDING ANY MENTION THAT RESPONDENT WOULD BE COMMITTED TO A HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENT
DATE: April 21, 2014
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
DEPT: S-6
INTRODUCTION
It is anticipated that the D.A. will elicit testimony from one or more witnesses that XXXXXXXX needs to be committed to the state mental hospital, that a ‘TRUE’ finding by the jury will result in such a commitment and that if the petition is found ‘TRUE’ he will receive such treatment. Any such testimony is irrelevant and necessarily entails the jury to consider the consequences of their verdict/finding.
California Evidence Code §351 provides that only relevant evidence is admissible at trial. In People v. Allen (1973) 29 Cal. App. 3d 932, 934-939, the court of appeal reversed a commitment under the former Mentally Disordered Sexual Offender (MDSO) (See former Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 6300 et seq.) where the jury had provided with information that if the MDSO petition were found true, the defendant would receive treatment in a state hospital. One of the psychiatrists testified that the defendant needed psychiatric help and that the treatment lessen the likelihood of committing further sexual offenses. (Id. At 934.) Two psychiatrists testified that the defendant met the commitment criteria and two testified he did not. (Ibid.) In closing argument the prosecutor suggested that without commitment and treatment as an MDSO, the defendant would remain the same person who had committed abnormal, impulsive sexual acts. (Ibid.)
Reversing the commitment, the court stated:
Permitting the jury to consider the alleged speculative benefits of involuntary treatment is to allow them to believe they are doing the individual a favor by helping solve his problem rather than punishing him criminally. The statements and remarks heard by the jury suggest that if he were found to be an MDSO he would receive treatment which would be beneficial and curative, and if he were not so found he would serve a jail sentence and again be turned loose on society. Aside from the evidence being irrelevant, the conclusions are misleading.
(People v. Allen, supra, 29 Cal. App. 3d 932, 939.) The court of appeal also emphasized that “[t]he treatment is not necessarily salutary” and that if found to be an MDSO, the defendant “may be confined for what may amount to a life sentence in a penal institution pursuant to a commitment for an indefinite term.” (Ibid.)
In People v. Rains (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 1165, 1170, the court of appeal similarly concluded that in a commitment case under section 6600, the consequences of a “true” finding have no relevance. In that case, the doctors that testified briefly that if the petition were found true, the defendant would receive a civil commitment in a psychiatric facility and receive treatment there. (Id. at 1171.) Finding error, the court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that a rule excluding evidence of the consequences of a verdict did not apply because section 6600 commitment proceedings are civil and not criminal (Id. at 1170.). The Court determined that any such evidence had no relevance to the issues that needed to be decided by the jury. (Ibid)
As in Rains and Allen, the government here should be precluded from eliciting testimony about the commitment of XXXXXXXX to a state hospital for treatment AND should be precluded from eliciting testimony about the treatment program at CSH. Any such testimony is irrelevant to whether XXXXXXXX was convicted of a sexually violent offense and whether he has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes him likely to commit sex offenses in the future.
Dated: March 27, 2014 Respectfully Submitted:
PHYLLIS MORRIS,
Public Defender
By:______
Deputy Public Defender
1TO PRECLUDE ANY MENTION OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF A ‘TRUE’ FINDING INCLUDING ANY MENTION THAT RESPONDENT WOULD BE COMMITTED TO A HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENT