247 Cal. App. 4th 381
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Nurudeen Lameed was charged with multiple felonies (including domestic violence and sexual offenses); proceedings were suspended after the court found a doubt as to his competence.
- Court-ordered evaluations (neuropsychologist Dr. Hughey and psychiatrist Dr. Greene) diagnosed a psychotic disorder (Psychosis NOS), found defendant incompetent to stand trial, concluded antipsychotic treatment was medically appropriate, and concluded defendant lacked capacity to decide about such medication.
- Records show an earlier psychotic episode (March 2014) involving 5150 hold, suicidal ideation, paranoid delusions, refusal of medication, and later violent offense against his wife (May 2014).
- The People sought an order under Penal Code § 1370 to permit involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication; the prosecution relied on § 1370(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) (lack of capacity + medical necessity + probability of serious harm).
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that defendant lacked capacity to consent to antipsychotic medication, that such medication was medically required, and that without it serious harm to his physical or mental health was probable; it ordered involuntary medication at the state hospital for up to one year.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Sell factors and the § 1370(a)(2)(B)(i)(III) (the Sell-track) were inapplicable because the order rested on the first prong of § 1370, and that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings under that prong.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sell constitutional standard applies | People relied on § 1370(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) and argued alternative (non-Sell) statutory grounds apply | Lameed argued Sell and § 1370(a)(2)(B)(i)(III) controls and that the order lacked required specificity under Sell | Sell inapplicable; court relied on § 1370(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) so Sell factors not required |
| Whether defendant lacks capacity to decide on antipsychotic medication | Experts testified defendant denied illness, refused meds, lacked insight; People argued lack of capacity proven by clear and convincing evidence | Lameed disputed sufficiency of evidence of incapacity | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported lack of capacity finding |
| Whether antipsychotic medication is medically required | Experts (hospital and court-appointed) testified meds appropriate to treat psychotic disorder and restore competence | Lameed argued insufficient proof of need and of specifics about drug/dosage/side effects per Sell-based claims | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports medical necessity under § 1370 prong I |
| Whether failure to medicate would probably cause serious harm to defendant’s health | People relied on prior suicidal ideation, grave disability holds, symptom recurrence risk, and experts’ opinions | Lameed argued statute requires more contemporaneous refusal in custodial setting or more specific side‑effect/dosage findings (Sell-based) | Affirmed: substantial evidence showed present adverse effects and probability of serious harm, satisfying § 1370(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (court may involuntarily medicate to restore competence only under strict multi-factor test)
- Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (recognizes liberty interest in avoiding unwanted antipsychotic drugs)
- People v. O’Dell, 126 Cal.App.4th 562 (discusses § 1370 and when Sell factors apply)
- People v. Christiana, 190 Cal.App.4th 1040 (interpretation of § 1370 framework pre-amendment)
- Carter v. Superior Court, 141 Cal.App.4th 992 (involuntary medication orders are disfavored; evidentiary standards)
- U.S. v. Rivera-Guerrero, 426 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. discussion of Sell and standards for forced medication)