39 Cal. App. 5th 254
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- The Public Guardian petitioned to be reappointed conservator of K.P. under the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act after an initial one-year conservatorship expired; K.P. demanded a jury trial.
- Trial evidence showed K.P. diagnosed with schizophrenia, exhibiting delusions, auditory hallucinations, paranoia, and a recent violent incident leading to hospitalization; treatment staff testified he lacked insight and would not reliably take medication without supervision.
- K.P.’s mother testified she would help obtain housing, assist with treatment, and insisted he take medication if he resisted, but could not immediately provide housing.
- The trial court instructed the jury with CACI No. 4000 listing two elements (mental disorder; gravely disabled as result) but omitted a former third element requiring a finding that the conservatee is unwilling or unable voluntarily to accept meaningful treatment; that topic was covered by CACI No. 4002 as a consideration.
- The jury found K.P. gravely disabled; the court reappointed the Public Guardian. K.P. appealed, arguing the omission of the third element from CACI No. 4000 was reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (K.P.) | Defendant's Argument (Public Guardian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CACI No. 4000 must include as an essential element that the conservatee is unwilling or unable voluntarily to accept meaningful treatment | The court erred by omitting that element because case law (e.g., Davis) requires the jury to find unwillingness/ inability to accept treatment when evidence shows willingness/ability | Section 5352 (refusal to accept treatment) applies to investigations/initial petitions, not as an element of gravely disabled; CACI No. 4002 allowed consideration of willingness to accept treatment | The omission was not error: unwillingness/inability to accept treatment is not an essential element of gravely disabled under §5008 and need not be in CACI No. 4000 |
| If omission was error, whether it was prejudicial | Instructional omission deprived K.P. of protection that jury must find he won’t accept treatment voluntarily | Any error is harmless because evidence overwhelmingly showed K.P. admitted he would not continue meds and lacked insight | Any error would be harmless: K.P. testified he would not take medications, so no reasonable jury could find otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of John L., 48 Cal.4th 131 (2010) (overview of LPS conservatorship purpose and reappointment procedure)
- Conservatorship of Davis, 124 Cal.App.3d 313 (1981) (jury permitted instruction on voluntariness to accept treatment in initial conservatorship trial)
- Conservatorship of Early, 35 Cal.3d 244 (1983) (jury entitled to consider third-party assistance in meeting basic needs)
- Conservatorship of Walker, 196 Cal.App.3d 1082 (1987) (instructional errors regarding ability/willingness to accept treatment can be harmless where conservatee admits refusal to medicate)
- Conservatorship of Symington, 209 Cal.App.3d 1464 (1989) (§5008 definition of gravely disabled does not include refusal to accept treatment; §5352 serves a different investigatory role)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional error harmlessness standard)