Fear Not Law Articles: CARTER v. THE SUPERIOR COURT

CARTER v. THE SUPERIOR COURT

Filed 7/27/06

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

ROBERT CARTER,

Petitioner,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

_________________________________

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

B182641

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BA274836)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in mandate. Barbara R. Johnson, Judge. Petition granted.

Michael P. Judge, Public Defender, Terry Shenkman and John Hamilton Scott, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Lael Rubin and Patrick D. Moran, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

INTRODUCTION

Robert Carter, a criminal defendant facing violent felony charges, was found incompetent to stand trial. The trial court then authorized a state hospital to administer antipsychotic drugs against his will in an effort to restore his competency. Under Sell v. United States (2003) 539 U.S. 166 (Sell), orders of this sort are constitutionally permissible only if they satisfy strict criteria. Otherwise, an accused has a due process liberty interest that protects against being involuntarily medicated. We hold the trial court's order here did not meet the Sell criteria, nor did it comply with applicable California law. Accordingly, we grant the petition and direct the trial court to vacate its order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner was charged with rape, sexual battery, assault with a deadly weapon, and false imprisonment. At petitioner's arraignment, his counsel provided the trial court with a report from a psychiatrist, Dr. Jack Rothberg, that stated petitioner was incompetent to stand trial. The court then declared a doubt as to petitioner's competency, appointed Dr. Rothberg and Dr. Samuel I. Miles to examine petitioner, and suspended criminal proceedings. (See Pen. Code, § 1368; Evid. Code, § 730.)^[1]

Supplemental reports were submitted by both doctors. Dr. Rothberg again concluded petitioner was incompetent to stand trial. He wrote: â€

Description	Trial court order directing state hospital to administer antipsychotic drugs against defendant's will in effort to restore his competency was not supported by substantial evidence, thus falling short of constitutional and statutory requirements, where (1) prosecutor made no showing that subjecting petitioner to involuntary antipsychotic medication would further any governmental interest, (2) medical experts presented conflicting opinions regarding defendant's condition, did not specify actual medication defendant should be treated with, and did not articulate any side effects defendant might experience if he took particular antipsychotic drugs, (3) medical experts provided no specific information concerning alternatives or less intrusive methods likely to have same results as forcible medication, and (4) medical experts presented no specific evidence that administration of antipsychotic medication was in defendant's best medical interests in light of his actual condition.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.