56 Cal.App.5th 385
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2013 Ford was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) for attempted kidnapping and committed under Penal Code §1026.5.
- In Feb 2019 the People filed a §1026.5 petition to extend his commitment by two years; the court set a pretrial hearing and ordered Ford transported from Patton State Hospital.
- The hospital failed to transport Ford to the April 25, 2019 pretrial hearing; he was absent. Defense counsel submitted a one‑paragraph letter from Dr. Knapke stating Ford lacked capacity to waive a jury.
- The court, relying on that letter, found Ford incompetent to decide whether to waive a jury; defense counsel waived the jury and the case proceeded to a bench trial set for May 30, 2019.
- At trial Dr. Plotkin (People) testified Ford remained dangerous; Ford testified coherently, described medication benefit and release plans, and the court extended his commitment by two years.
- On appeal the court held Ford’s absence at the April 25 hearing was prejudicial and conditionally reversed and remanded for a competency hearing in Ford’s presence; the extension may be reinstated if specified conditions are met.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Ford’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could find Ford incompetent to waive a jury in his absence | Hospital’s failure to transport did not change the substantial evidence (Dr. Knapke’s opinion) that Ford lacked capacity; any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Denial of right to be present at a critical stage deprived Ford of chance to demonstrate competence; counsel cannot validly waive absent on‑the‑record incompetence or personal waiver | Court erred: defendant has due‑process right to be present; absence was prejudicial and not shown harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether counsel may waive the jury on defendant’s behalf without substantial evidence of incompetence | Counsel’s waiver was acceptable because record showed substantial evidence of incompetence | Only the defendant may waive unless substantial evidence shows lack of capacity; here the record was tainted by defendant’s absence | Only defendant may waive unless substantial evidence supports incompetence on the record; here finding occurred in defendant’s absence so waiver was invalid |
| Remedy for the error | Any harmless‑error standard satisfied; no reversal necessary | Remand for a new on‑the‑record competency determination in defendant’s presence; reversal required unless cure | Conditional reversal and remand for an in‑person hearing; extension reinstated if court again finds incompetence, defendant knowingly waives, or a jury finds petition true |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tran, 61 Cal.4th 1160 (2015) (trial court must personally advise NGI defendant of jury right; only defendant may waive unless substantial evidence shows incapacity)
- People v. Blackburn, 61 Cal.4th 1113 (2015) (advisement purpose and competency context for waiver decisions)
- People v. Sivongxxay, 3 Cal.5th 151 (2017) (knowing jury waiver requires appreciation of nature and consequences; competence requires capacity to comprehend)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (prosecution bears burden to show federal constitutional error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Jackson, 58 Cal.4th 724 (2014) (harmless‑beyond‑reasonable‑doubt standard for federal constitutional errors)
- In re R.V., 61 Cal.4th 181 (2015) (finder of fact may observe person’s behavior; should not defer automatically to experts)
- Conservatorship of Pamela J., 133 Cal.App.4th 807 (2005) (court’s direct observation is critical when assessing competence at a hearing)