P. v. Lindeman
In a recommitment proceeding under subdivision (b) of Penal Code section 1026.5 (hereafter section 1026.5(b)), a jury found defendant Luke Lindeman had a mental disease, defect, or disorder and by reason of that condition represented a substantial danger of physical harm to others. As a result, the trial court ordered his commitment to Napa State Hospital extended two years. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the jurys findings; (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it also had to decide whether he suffered from a mental disorder that caused him to have serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior; and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing argument by telling the jury the consequences of their findings and arguing it would be good for defendant to lose his case.
Court conclude the evidence the testimony of a single psychologist was sufficient to support the jurys findings; however, the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it had to decide whether defendants mental disorder caused him to have serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. As the People now concede, under our Supreme Courts decision in In re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117 (Howard N.) a volitional element must be read into the test for recommitment in section 1026.5(b) to make that statute comport with general due process principles regarding civil commitments. We also conclude the instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to a new recommitment trial.
Comments on P. v. Lindeman