P. v. Crooks CA4/1
William Grant Crooks, a person found not guilty by reason of insanity, appeals an order following a jury trial extending for two years his commitment to Patton State Hospital (Patton) pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b). Crooks contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to establish his mental illness resulted in serious volitional impairment or would cause him to be a current danger to others if released because the People's experts relied upon, and related to the jury, inadmissible hearsay evidence and (2) the court erred in responding to a jury question about the requirement that Crooks "now" poses a substantial danger. We conclude Crooks forfeited his evidentiary challenge by failing to object to the experts' opinions at the time they were rendered and we further conclude there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding. We also conclude the court responded to the jury's inquiry with a proper statement of the law. We aff
Comments on P. v. Crooks CA4/1