People v. Moine
62 Cal.App.5th 440
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Two separate incidents at medical clinics: (1) April 2017 fistfight in an urgent care waiting room (assault charges) and (2) March 2018 verbal outburst at another clinic where Moine allegedly threatened to "come back and shoot all of you" (criminal threats charges).
- Moine was charged with three assault-related counts (acquitted at trial) and two felony counts of making criminal threats (§ 422); jury convicted on the criminal-threats counts; court suspended sentence and imposed five years’ probation.
- Before trial Moine sought pretrial mental-health diversion under Penal Code § 1001.36, supported by two psychiatrists who diagnosed Bipolar I and ADHD and opined low risk of future assault; the trial court denied diversion as posing an "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety."
- At trial the court excluded all testimony from the court‑appointed psychiatrist, Dr. Leifer, under sections 28 and 29, preventing the jury from receiving expert evidence about Moine’s mental disorders and their effect on his conduct.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal (published in part) held the trial court abused its discretion in denying diversion because the record did not support a finding Moine was likely to commit a "super‑strike" violent felony; in the unpublished portion the court also found exclusion of Dr. Leifer’s testimony unconstitutional/error and prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly denied §1001.36 mental‑health diversion based on dangerousness | People argued Moine was dangerous because he committed violent acts in two medical facilities and diversion would risk public safety | Moine argued psychiatrists found low risk of future assault, no history of violent "super‑strike" felonies, and the record did not support finding likely to commit a super‑strike | Court: Abuse of discretion; remand for new §1001.36 hearing because record did not support finding he was likely to commit a super‑strike offense |
| Whether exclusion of Dr. Leifer’s testimony violated right to present a defense and §§28/29 | People argued mental‑illness evidence cannot be used to negate intent/capacity and expert could not opine on ultimate issue | Moine argued Dr. Leifer would testify to diagnoses and how symptoms affected his behavior (relevant to whether he actually formed the specific intent required for §422) without opining on legal ultimate issue | Court: Exclusion was erroneous—expert diagnosis and explanation of effect on behavior admissible to challenge actual formation of specific intent for a specific‑intent crime |
| Whether exclusion of psychiatrist testimony was prejudicial | People argued any error was harmless given the evidence of threatening conduct | Moine argued absence of expert left jury no alternative explanation; jury deliberations were close | Court: Error was prejudicial under Watson; reversal warranted because reasonably probable outcome would be more favorable if testimony admitted |
| Remedy: disposition after errors | People sought to affirm convictions and diversion denial | Moine sought reversal and remand for diversion hearing and retrial if diversion denied | Court: Reversed both conviction and diversion denial; remanded for new §1001.36 hearing; if diversion denied, trial court may retry criminal‑threats charges in accordance with this opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (remedy of conditional remand for §1001.36 reconsideration)
- People v. Coddington, 23 Cal.4th 529 (expert mental‑illness evidence admissible to challenge actual formation of specific intent)
- People v. Elmore, 59 Cal.4th 121 (distinguishing admissible mental‑illness evidence from legal‑insanity claims; §28 analysis)
- People v. Cortes, 192 Cal.App.4th 873 (error to preclude psychiatrist from testifying about diagnoses and their relation to defendant’s conduct)
- People v. Herrera, 247 Cal.App.4th 467 (exclusion of expert testimony undermining defendant’s only defense required reversal)
- People v. Knoller, 41 Cal.4th 139 (abuse of discretion standard where wrong legal standard applied)
- People v. Jefferson, 1 Cal.App.5th 235 (application of §1170.18 dangerousness analysis parallels)
- People v. Hall, 247 Cal.App.4th 1255 (affirming dangerousness denial where extensive violent criminal history supported likelihood of future deadly force)