BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1281|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1281
Author: Blakeslee (R)
Amended: 4/24/12
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/17/12
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Calderon, Harman, Liu, Price,
Steinberg
SUBJECT : Psychiatric evaluations: not guilty by reason
of insanity pleas
SOURCE : California Association of Psychiatric
Technicians
DIGEST : This bill requires that where a psychiatrist or
psychologist evaluates a defendant for purposes of a plea
of not guilty by reason of insanity, the evaluation report
shall include the following: the defendant's history of
drug abuse, his/her drug use on the day of offense, and a
review of the police report of the offense.
ANALYSIS : Existing decisional law explains: "It is
fundamental �justice] that a person cannot be convicted for
acts performed while insane. This �is part of the] ?
fundamental principle that wrongful intent is an essential
element of crime?" ( People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.3d
765, 771-784)
Existing law provides: "In any criminal �or juvenile
CONTINUED
SB 1281
Page
2
delinquency] proceeding ? �the] defense �of not guilty by
reason of insanity] shall be found ? only when the accused
person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he or
she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature
and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right
from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense."
(Penal Code � 25, subd. (b))
Existing decisional law provides that Section 25 must be
read in the alternative to be constitutional. That is, a
defendant was insane if he/she was either (1) incapable of
knowing or understanding the nature and quality of the act,
or (2) incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the
time of the offense. ( People v. Skinner, supra , 39 Cal.3d
765, 771-784)
Existing law provides the following concerning voluntary
intoxication:
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime; but
Voluntary intoxication is admissible on whether a
defendant formed the criminal element of specific intent;
and
In a murder prosecution, voluntary intoxication is
admissible on the issue of whether the defendant
premeditated, deliberated or harbored express malice.
(Penal Code � 22, subds. (a)-(c))
Existing law provides that a finding of not guilty by
reason of insanity shall not be found "solely on the basis
of a personality or adjustment disorder, a seizure
disorder, or an addiction to, or abuse of, intoxicating
substances." (Penal Code � 25.5)
Existing law provides that where a defendant pleads not
guilty by reason of insanity, the court must appoint at
least two, and may appoint three, psychiatrists or
psychologists, to evaluate the defendant. An appointed
psychologist must have a doctorate and at least five years
of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental or
emotional disorders. (Penal Code � 1027, subd. (a))
CONTINUED
SB 1281
Page
3
Existing law provides that the report of the experts shall
include, but not be limited to, the following:
The psychological history of the defendant;
The facts surrounding the charged offense; and
The present psychiatric or psychological symptoms of the
defendant, if any. (Penal Code � 1027, subd. (b))
Existing law provides that either party in a not guilty by
reason of insanity trial may present expert evidence as to
the mental status of the defendant at the time of the
charged offense. (Penal Code � 1027, subds. (c)-(d).)
Existing law provides that where a defendant pleads not
guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, the case shall
be tried as though the defendant has pleaded only not
guilty. If the jury or court finds the defendant guilty,
the issue of whether the defendant was insane at the time
of the charged offense shall be promptly tried. (Penal
Code � 1026, subd. (a))
Existing law provides that where a defendant pleads only
not guilty by reason of insanity, the issue of the
defendant's sanity alone shall be promptly tried. (Penal
Code � 1026, subd. (a))
Existing law provides that where the defendant is found to
have been sane at the time of the charged offense, the
court shall sentence the defendant according to the law.
(Penal Code � 1026, subd. (a))
Existing law provides that the court can dismiss a plea of
not guilty by reason of insanity where the defendant fails
to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could
determine whether or not the defendant was insane at the
time of the offense. ( People v. Ceja (2006) 106
Cal.App.4th 1071, 1089)
Existing law provides that where the defendant was found to
be insane at the time of the offense, the court, unless it
determines that the defendant's sanity has been fully
recovered, shall direct that the defendant be confined in
the state hospital or private facility, as specified. The
court may also place the defendant on outpatient status.
(Penal Code � 1026, subd. (a))
CONTINUED
SB 1281
Page
4
This bill provides that the reports of the psychiatrist or
psychologists appointed to evaluate a person who has
pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity must include the
following:
The defendant's history of drug use;
The defendant's drug use on the day of the offense, and
A review of the police report, and any other credible and
relevant material reasonably necessary to describe the
facts of the offense.
Prior legislation . Proposition 8 of the June 1982 Primary
Election.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/24/12)
California Association of Psychiatric Technicians (source)
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
The population in state hospitals has dramatically
changed in the past two decades. In the mid-1990's, 80
percent of the patients were civil commitments, and only
20 percent had committed a crime. Today, 90 percent of
patients have committed a crime and assaults on staff are
increasing. The dangers to staff in were sadly
epitomized by the murder of Donna Gross, a psychiatric
technician at Napa State Hospital who was killed by Jess
Willard Massey, who been committed to Napa as not guilty
by reason of insanity (NGI).
SB 1281 seeks to improve hospital safety by preventing
improper NGI verdicts. A study of NGI patients committed
to Napa State Hospital found disturbing trends in the
court-ordered evaluations of NGI defendants used to
inform juries regarding the sanity of defendants. In
almost half of the cases (44%), the evaluator failed to
follow statutory standards. Two-thirds of the time (66%)
the evaluator failed to consider drug or alcohol use at
CONTINUED
SB 1281
Page
5
the time of the offense. Thus, many NGI verdicts may
have based on inadequate and legally faulty evaluations.
SB 1281 will help protect patients and staff from violent
individuals whose only legitimate diagnosis is
personality disorder. Such persons should not have been
committed to a state hospital. At a time when staff
morale is low and fear high, SB 1281 will improve the
work environment for the professionals who are forced to
manage inappropriately committed individuals. The true
cost of these inappropriate commitments is borne by the
staff members who carry bruises, broken bones, and scars
- sometimes to their grave - from assaults that occur
because evaluators erroneously applied the law.
This bill also will reduce state costs. The cost to
treat and house a patient at a state hospital averages
$200,000 annually; in comparison, a prisoner costs the
state $50,000 approximately per year. Accurate
evaluations of defendants that result in fewer
inappropriate placements at state hospitals could save
the state money. Similarly, limited mental health
resources would be focused on patients with mental
illnesses.
RJG:mw 4/24/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED