People v. Gregerson
202 Cal. App. 4th 306
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Jack Allan Gregerson is an involuntarily committed MDO appealing a court order denying outpatient treatment under Penal Code section 2972, subdivision (d).
- Gregerson was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in 1992 and was committed as an MDO in 2001, with commitments extended by stipulation through November 2010.
- In July 2010 the Orange County District Attorney petitioned for recommitment; trial proceeded on whether outpatient treatment was appropriate after a jury was waived by stipulation.
- Gregerson testified he has paranoid schizophrenia (in remission for 20 years), alcohol issues, and a history of violence; he acknowledged ongoing antipsychotic treatment and alcohol-avoidance strategies.
- A state hospital psychiatrist evaluated Gregerson as having paranoid schizophrenia with alcohol dependency and concluded outpatient treatment could be safe, though insight into the illness and its relation to violence remained developing.
- A CONREP psychologist projected a structured outpatient plan with strict monitoring; concerns persisted about insight and risk if alcohol use resumed, potentially undermining treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden of proof for outpatient treatment. | Gregerson argued no moving party burden under 2972(d). | People argued moving party bears burden; court adopted preponderance standard. | Patient bears burden; standard is reasonable cause. |
| The standard of proof applicable to 2972(d). | Evidence Code 115 preponderance should apply or SVPA-like probable cause. | Preponderance is the appropriate standard. | Reasonable cause standard applies; not preponderance. |
| Appropriate scope and standard of appellate review. | Appeal should review for abuse of discretion. | Appeal should review for substantial evidence. | Review for substantial evidence; standard is objective and fact-driven. |
| Rationale for mootness and judicial guidance. | Remand for proper standard unnecessary if moot due to subsequent outpatient order. | Remand might be needed for proper standard if not moot. | Appeal dismissed as moot because outpatient treatment already granted; issues clarified for future proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooley v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 2002) (probable cause standard governs SVPA-like outpatient determinations; 'otherwise provided' burden under Evidence Code 115)
- People v. Rish, 163 Cal.App.4th 1370 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (court may consider sua sponte outpatient treatment issues; forfeiture rules apply)
- People v. May, 155 Cal.App.4th 350 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (whether a court may consider outpatient treatment sua sponte)
- Conservatorship of Hume, 140 Cal.App.4th 1385 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (status quo burden principles; 'he who takes the benefit must bear the burden')