People v. Radtke CA2/6
B308828
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 7, 2021Background:
- Defendant Gerald Radtke was convicted of assault (§ 245(a)(4)) and previously committed as an MDO to Atascadero State Hospital in 2017; involuntary treatment was set to expire Sept. 2020.
- In June 2020 the People petitioned under Penal Code § 2970 to recommit Radtke for an additional one-year MDO term.
- Dr. Kavita Chowdhary (psychologist) diagnosed schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, based on records, interviews, prior evaluations, and treatment staff reports.
- Radtke has long-term psychotic symptoms (auditory hallucinations, paranoia, persecutory delusions), mood lability, cognitive/speech impairments from strokes (2014, 2016), and longstanding medication noncompliance; he was under an involuntary medication order.
- Within the year before trial he had several incidents of aggression toward staff (Sept. 2019; three incidents in Jan. 2020) including lunging/striking staff and being placed in restraints; Dr. Chowdhary opined his aggression is likely to continue.
- The trial court found the statutory elements met and ordered recommitment for one year (until Sept. 15, 2021); defendant appealed arguing insufficient evidence of serious difficulty controlling dangerous behavior.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports that defendant has "serious difficulty" controlling dangerous behavior so as to justify MDO recommitment | People: Expert testimony and documented recent incidents of aggression, ongoing psychotic symptoms, medication noncompliance, and cognitive limits show serious difficulty controlling dangerous behavior | Radtke: Evidence insufficient because expert said he was not "volitionally impaired," implying some degree of control over behavior | Court affirmed: substantial evidence (symptoms, repeated aggression, need for restraint, medication refusal, expert opinion of likely continuation) supports finding of serious difficulty controlling dangerous behavior |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 1055 (Cal. 2010) (describes MDO Act purpose and framework)
- People v. Harrison, 57 Cal.4th 1211 (Cal. 2013) (cited for treatment of MDO statutory interpretation)
- People v. Burroughs, 131 Cal.App.4th 1401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (describes elements for recommitment under § 2972)
- People v. Williams, 31 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2003) (due process requires proof of serious difficulty controlling dangerous behavior; impairment need not be absolute)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (federal due process standard for civil confinement of dangerous sexual predators tied to inability to control behavior)
- People v. Putnam, 115 Cal.App.4th 575 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that statutory MDO findings encompass serious difficulty controlling behavior)
- People v. Clark, 82 Cal.App.4th 1072 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (standard of review: substantial evidence applies)