28 Cal. App. 5th 93
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Marc Anthony Endsley was found NGI for first‑degree murder (1997) and committed to a state hospital; he later sought conditional outpatient release under Penal Code §1026.2.
- Endsley filed a §1026.2 petition (May 2015); the trial court initially denied it summarily; this court reversed in Endsley I and held the court must obtain the state hospital's recommendation before ruling.
- On remand the hospital recommended continued confinement; at the outpatient placement hearing (May 2017) the prosecution presented only state hospital/CONREP experts who opposed release.
- Endsley sought (1) appointment of an independent expert to assist his petition and (2) permission to testify remotely (to avoid being housed in county jail); the trial court denied both and proceeded to deny his petition.
- The court below failed to follow §1026.2(b)–(c) procedures requiring the community program director and court to designate a local facility able to continue the NGI’s treatment pending the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Endsley’s request to testify remotely without ensuring designation of a local facility that could continue treatment under §1026.2(b)–(c) | Endsley wanted to testify and objected only to jail confinement; statute requires designation of a treatment‑capable local facility so he could testify in person | People argued Endsley voluntarily refused to testify in person, so statutory designation was immaterial | Court held denial was abuse of discretion; trial court must follow §1026.2(b)–(c) to designate appropriate facility before ruling on remote testimony or deeming waiver |
| Whether indigent NGIs petitioning for conditional release are entitled to appointment of an independent medical expert | Endsley relied on McKee to argue due process requires appointment so indigent NGIs can meaningfully rebut state experts | People conceded McKee is analogous but argued denial was harmless because state proof was "overwhelming" | Court extended McKee: indigent NGIs who request assistance are entitled to appointment of an independent expert; denial was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Soiu v. Superior Court, 106 Cal.App.4th 1191 (appellate decision recognizing right to hearing on §1026.2 petition and that trial court may consider appointment of medical professional)
- Endsley v. Superior Court, 248 Cal.App.4th 110 (remanding for hearing and holding court must obtain hospital recommendation under §1026.2(l))
- In re Lee, 78 Cal.App.3d 753 (disallowing jail confinement for NGIs pending release hearing under earlier law; prompted statutory amendments)
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (holding indigent SVPs petitioning for conditional release are entitled to appointment of independent experts on due process grounds)
- In re Moye, 22 Cal.3d 457 (describing NGI confinement as civil and for treatment, not punishment)
Disposition: The trial court's denial of the petition is reversed. On remand the court must appoint an independent expert for Endsley if he requests one and must follow §1026.2(b)–(c) in designating an appropriate facility to house him pending any hearing where he wishes to testify.