Conservatorship of Eric B., 508 P.3d 1099

Background:

Contra Costa County’s Public Guardian petitioned for an LPS one‑year conservatorship for Eric B., alleging he was gravely disabled by chronic schizophrenia and unable to provide for food, clothing, or shelter.
At jury trial the court overruled Eric B.’s objection and compelled his testimony; witnesses and records also described longstanding noncompliance with medication, paranoia, and inability to care for himself.
The jury found Eric B. gravely disabled; the court appointed the Public Guardian conservator and imposed treatment and placement orders.
On appeal Eric B. argued equal protection required that traditional LPS conservatees receive the same statutory right not to give compelled testimony that the Penal Code grants to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI’s).
The Court of Appeal agreed LPS conservatees are similarly situated to NGI’s for this purpose but found any error in compelling testimony harmless; it disagreed with Conservatorship of Bryan S.
The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the split, held LPS conservatees and NGI’s are sufficiently similar to trigger equal protection scrutiny of disparate testimonial rules, but affirmed because any error was harmless and declined to decide the appropriate level of scrutiny or whether the differential treatment is ultimately justified.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether traditional LPS conservatees are similarly situated to NGI’s for purposes of a statutory right against compelled testimony	Eric B.: Equal protection requires extending NGI statutory testimonial protection to LPS conservatees	Public Guardian: LPS conservatees differ (no underlying crime, different statutory purpose and placements); Cramer and precedent support no privilege in civil commitments	Yes — sufficiently similar to trigger equal protection inquiry; court did not resolve justification but required government to justify disparate treatment
Whether a constitutional privilege against compelled testimony applies to LPS conservatorship trials	Eric B.: did not press a constitutional claim here (relied on statutory/equal protection argument)	Public Guardian: constitutional privilege against compelled testimony does not extend to civil commitment proceedings	No constitutional right was recognized here; the question is statutory/equal protection (Hudec governs NGI statutory grant)
Whether compelling the conservatee’s testimony requires reversal	Eric B.: compelled testimony was erroneous and prejudicial	Public Guardian: other testimonial and documentary evidence independently proved grave disability	Error was harmless under state and federal standards; judgment affirmed
Whether prior Court of Appeal decision in Bryan S. remains good law	Eric B.: (argued inconsistency with other appellate rulings)	Public Guardian: relied on Bryan S. reasoning that groups are dissimilar	Supreme Court disapproved Bryan S. to the extent it conflicts with this opinion

Key Cases Cited

Hudec v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 815 (Cal. 2015) (interpreting Penal Code §1026.5(b)(7) to afford NGI respondents a statutory right not to give compelled testimony)
Cramer v. Tyars, 23 Cal.3d 131 (Cal. 1979) (refusing to extend the testimonial privilege to civil commitments for developmentally disabled persons)
Conservatorship of K.P., 11 Cal.5th 695 (Cal. 2021) (describing LPS conservatorship procedures and trial rights)
Roulet v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.3d 219 (Cal. 1979) (extending certain criminal‑style procedural protections to conservatorship trials because of liberty interests)
Ben C. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 529 (Cal. 2007) (discussing limits on applying criminal procedural protections in conservatorship proceedings)
McKee v. Harris, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2010) (equal protection framework applied to civil commitment statutes involving similar liberty interests)
Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1986) (holding federal privilege against self‑incrimination did not extend to certain civil commitment proceedings tied to criminal adjudications)
Conservatorship of Bryan S., 42 Cal.App.5th 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (contrasting appellate decision holding traditional LPS conservatees not similarly situated to NGI’s; disapproved to the extent inconsistent with this opinion)