People v. Barrett
54 Cal. 4th 1081
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Christine Barrett, an adult with mental retardation and other disorders, was subjected to a §6500 commitment petition as mentally retarded and dangerous to self or others.
- The petition was filed January 22, 2009 in Santa Clara County; interim placement was ordered at a secure treatment facility pending resolution.
- The People relied on Center and Department assessments; Dr. Robert Thomas testified Barrett had IQ in the 50s–40s and posed danger due to cognitive deficits and history of incidents.
- Barrett testified; the trial court found her mentally retarded and dangerous and committed her for one year to the Department, designating the interim facility as the least restrictive placement.
- The record of the March 9 hearing shows no transcript, only a short minute order; there is no evidence of an in-court jury advisement or a personal jury waiver by Barrett.
- The Court of Appeal rejected Barrett’s due process and equal protection challenges; the California Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the lack of express court advisement and personal waiver violate due process? | Barrett | People | No due process violation; counsel may decide to seek or waive a jury. |
| Does equal protection require jury-trial advisement in §6500 proceedings like §5300/LPS Act? | Barrett | People | No equal protection violation; §6500 defendants are not similarly situated to §5300 patients given mental retardation context. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Masterson, 8 Cal.4th 965 (1994) (waiver of jury trial in competency proceedings delegated to counsel)
- Hill, 67 Cal.2d 105 (1967) (no duty to advise in competency context; counsel may act for client)
- People v. Alvas, 221 Cal.App.3d 1459 (1990) (due process requiring express personal advisement when no counsel involved)
- People v. Bailie, 144 Cal.App.4th 841 (2006) (equal protection considerations in §6500 context; reliance on Alvas)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (due process concerns in civil commitments for mental illness)
- Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational basis with bite; heightened scrutiny for disability classifications in some contexts)
- Conservatorship of John L., 48 Cal.4th 131 (2009) (equal protection in conservatorship/competence contexts; guidance for state rights)
- In re Hop, 29 Cal.3d 82 (1981) (developmentally disabled individuals and Lanterman Act rights; due process implications)
- Money v. Krall, 128 Cal.App.3d 378 (1982) (due process and conspicuous procedural protections in disability contexts)