Hudec v. Superior Court
60 Cal. 4th 815
| Cal. | 2015Background
- Charles Hudec, found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) for killing his father (1981), was committed to a state hospital for the maximum term for voluntary manslaughter and later faced a petition (2012) to extend commitment under Penal Code §1026.5(b).
- Section 1026.5(b)(7) provides that a person in an NGI extension hearing is "entitled to the rights guaranteed under the federal and State Constitutions for criminal proceedings."
- The trial court denied Hudec's pretrial motion to bar compelled testimony; the Court of Appeal issued a writ preventing compulsion, and the People sought review by the California Supreme Court.
- Central legal question: does §1026.5(b)(7) give an NGI respondent the statutory right to refuse to testify (i.e., the criminal-defendant right not to be called as a witness) at an extension hearing?
- Prior appellate precedent split: People v. Haynie held the statute grants the right not to testify; People v. Lopez and several others held it does not, reasoning the hearings are civil/therapeutic and some criminal rights lack "relevant relationship."
- The Supreme Court analyzed statutory text, history, and precedents and resolved the split in favor of recognizing the statutory right not to testify in §1026.5(b) extension hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hudec) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1026.5(b)(7) gives an NGI extension respondent the right not to testify | §1026.5(b)(7) unambiguously incorporates the criminal-defendant right not to testify; Hudec cannot be compelled | Literal application would produce absurd results; some criminal rights lack relevant relationship to civil commitment hearings, so the right may be excluded | The Court held §1026.5(b)(7) includes the right not to testify; respondents may refuse to testify in extension hearings |
| Whether statutory text can be limited by a "relevant relationship" gloss from precedent | The statute’s wording and history show the Legislature intended to grant the set of criminal procedural rights | Appellate decisions (Williams/Lopez) properly limited the grant to rights meaningfully applicable to civil commitment | The Court rejected the "mere codification"/"relevant relationship" narrowing and applied the statute’s plain scope |
| Whether recognizing the right would cause absurd or unworkable consequences for §1026.5 hearings | No—refusal to testify does not prevent hearings; prosecution can rely on affidavits and expert testimony | Some criminal rights (e.g., right not to be tried while incompetent) could impede the statutory scheme | The Court found no absurdity in applying the right not to testify and distinguished other rights that might be inapplicable |
| Precedential effect—whether to disapprove contrary appellate decisions | Hudec urged adherence to Haynie and related cases | People relied on Lopez, Williams, Powell, and others to reject Haynie | The Court affirmed Haynie’s approach as correct and disapproved Lopez, Williams, Powell, and Angeletakis to the extent they excluded the right |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Burnick, 14 Cal.3d 306 (1975) (due process protections required in certain commitment proceedings)
- People v. Feagley, 14 Cal.3d 338 (1975) (procedural protections, including jury unanimity, in commitment contexts)
- In re Moye, 22 Cal.3d 457 (1978) (initial NGI commitments limited to maximum penal term; extensions may follow MDSO procedures)
- Cramer v. Tyars, 23 Cal.3d 131 (1979) (intellectually disabled persons in civil commitment lacked a constitutional right not to be called as witnesses, but retained privilege against compelled incriminating testimony)
- Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364 (1986) (recognizes right not to testify as a criminal-defendant protection)
- People v. Haynie, 116 Cal.App.4th 1224 (2004) (interpreted §1026.5(b)(7) to bar compelled testimony at NGI extension hearings)
- People v. Lopez, 137 Cal.App.4th 1099 (2006) (rejected Haynie; held right not to testify not incorporated into §1026.5(b)(7))
- People v. Williams (People v. Superior Court), 233 Cal.App.3d 477 (1991) (read §1026.5(b)(7) as codifying only constitutional protections judicially required)
- People v. Powell, 114 Cal.App.4th 1153 (2004) (applied Williams to limit rights in §1026.5 hearings)