legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Lopez
Defendant challenges an order entered in 2005 extending his civil commitment to the Department of Mental Health as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) for an additional year. (Pen. Code, 2970.) He asserts that the order must be reversed because the trial court permitted the People to call him as a witness in the current recommitment proceeding, and admitted into evidence his former testimony from a 2000 recommitment proceeding. He argues that under other statutory schemes the Legislature has afforded civilly committed persons the right not to testify at their recommitment proceedings, and accordingly equal protection principles mandate that this same right be afforded to him. This precise argument was rejected by another division of this court in an appeal filed by Lopez from his 2004 recommitment order. (People v. Lopez (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1099(Lopez).) The Lopez court held that the Legislature has not extended the right not to testify to civil committees. Court agree with this holding. Alternatively, we hold any error in admitting Lopez's testimony was not prejudicial. Accordingly, Court affirm the recommitment order.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale