49 Cal.App.5th 220
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Appellant J.Y. objected when the Contra Costa County Public Guardian sought reappointment as her conservator under the Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act; the trial court overruled her objection to being called as a witness and she testified; a jury found her gravely disabled and the conservatorship was renewed.
- Appellant argued on appeal that compelling her testimony violated state and federal equal protection because persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) have a statutory right to refuse to testify in commitment-extension proceedings.
- The trial record included expert psychiatric and psychological testimony diagnosing schizophrenia and grave disability; the court imposed statutory disabilities and designated a skilled nursing facility as the least restrictive placement.
- While the appeal was pending the one-year conservatorship term expired and a new reappointment petition was filed; the court took judicial notice of those filings and the appeal was therefore technically moot, but the panel exercised discretion to decide the constitutional issue on the merits.
- The court concluded LPS conservatees are similarly situated to NGI’s (and other involuntary civil-commitment groups) for purposes of the privilege against compelled testimony and that respondent had not shown a compelling justification for denying that protection — but dismissed the appeal as moot, so no remedial relief or remand was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LPS conservatees are similarly situated to NGI’s (and SVP/MDO) for purposes of protection against compelled testimony | LPS conservatees face potentially indefinite, state‑sanctioned deprivation of liberty and thus are similarly situated to NGI’s and other involuntary civil‑commitment groups | LPS conservatees differ because they need not have committed crimes or be dangerous to others; LPS aims are treatment‑oriented, not punitive | Court: LPS conservatees are similarly situated for this purpose (agrees with E.B., disagrees with Bryan S.) |
| Whether the state can satisfy strict scrutiny to justify compelled testimony in LPS reappointment proceedings | Compulsion violates equal protection absent a compelling state interest; NGI’s have statutory protection therefore LPS conservatees deserve the same unless state shows compelling need | Public guardian asserts a compelling interest in accurate fact‑finding, diagnosis and protection of those unable to care for themselves | Court: Respondent has not yet shown a compelling justification; strict scrutiny applies; no adequate factual showing made here |
| Mootness / Remedy | Appellant asks court to decide on merits despite mootness because issue is recurring and of public importance | Respondent notes the conservatorship expired and any ruling would not affect present custody | Court: Exercised discretion to address merits but dismissed the appeal as moot; no remand for evidentiary hearing was ordered |
| Harmless error (whether compelled testimony was harmless) | Appellant contends error required reversal | Respondent argues other evidence proved grave disability | Court: Did not reach harmlessness because appeal dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudec v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 815 (2015) (held NGI respondents have statutory right to refuse to testify in commitment‑extension hearings)
- Conservatorship of Roulet, 23 Cal.3d 219 (1979) (recognized potential for unbroken, indefinite state‑sanctioned confinement and serious liberty interests in LPS proceedings)
- Conservatorship of Baber, 153 Cal.App.3d 542 (1984) (discussed civil nature of conservatorship proceedings and utility of observing proposed conservatee)
- Conservatorship of E.B., 45 Cal.App.5th 986 (2020) (held LPS conservatees are similarly situated to NGI’s re: compelled testimony)
- Conservatorship of Bryan S., 42 Cal.App.5th 190 (2019) (reached opposite conclusion; found LPS conservatees not similarly situated to NGI’s)
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (2010) (framework for assessing whether groups are similarly situated under equal protection)
- People v. Dunley, 247 Cal.App.4th 1438 (2016) (applies strict scrutiny to equal protection challenges to involuntary civil commitment schemes)