California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)

3453. Extension of Commitment

Download PDF
3453.Extension of Commitment (Pen. Code, § 1026.5(b)(1))
<insert name of respondent> has been committed to a
mental health facility. You must decide whether (he/she) currently poses
a substantial danger of physical harm to others as a result of a mental
disease, defect, or disorder. That is the only purpose of this proceeding.
You are not being asked to decide <insert name of
respondent>’s mental condition at any other time or whether (he/she) is
guilty of any crime.
To prove that <insert name of respondent> currently poses
a substantial danger of physical harm to others as a result of a mental
disease, defect, or disorder, the People must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that:
1. (He/She) suffers from a mental disease, defect, or disorder;
AND
2. As a result of (his/her) mental disease, defect, or disorder, (he/
she) now:
a. Poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others;
AND
b. Has serious difficulty in controlling (his/her) dangerous
behavior.
[Control of a mental condition through medication is a defense to a
petition to extend commitment. To establish this defense,
<insert name of respondent> must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that:
1. (He/She) no longer poses a substantial danger of physical harm
to others because (he/she) is now taking medicine that controls
(his/her) mental condition;
AND
2. (He/She) will continue to take that medicine in an unsupervised
environment.
Proof by a preponderance of the evidence is a different burden of proof
from proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A fact is proved by a
preponderance of the evidence if you conclude that it is more likely
than not that the fact is true.]
New January 2006; Revised June 2007, December 2008, August 2015
959
0055
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the standard for extending
commitment, including the constitutional requirement that the person be found to
have a disorder that seriously impairs the ability to control his or her dangerous
behavior. (People v. Sudar (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 655, 663 [70 Cal.Rptr.3d 190].).
Give CALCRIM No. 219, Reasonable Doubt in Civil Commitment Proceedings,
and CALCRIM No. 3550, Pre-Deliberation Instructions, as well as any other
relevant post-trial instructions, such as CALCRIM No. 222, Evidence, or
CALCRIM No. 226, Witnesses.
The constitutional requirement for an involuntary civil commitment is that the
person be found to have a disorder that seriously impairs the ability to control his
or her dangerous behavior. (Kansas v. Crane (2002) 534 U.S. 407, 412–413 [122
S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856]; In re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117, 128 [24
Cal.Rptr.3d 866, 106 P.3d 305].) This requirement applies to an extension of a
commitment after a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. (People v. Zapisek
(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1159–1165 [54 Cal.Rptr.3d 873]; People v. Bowers
(2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 870, 878 [52 Cal.Rptr.3d 74]; People v. Galindo (2006)
142 Cal.App.4th 531 [48 Cal.Rptr.3d 241].)
AUTHORITY
• Instructional Requirements Pen. Code, § 1026.5(b)(1).
Unanimous Verdict, Burden of Proof Conservatorship of Roulet (1979) 23
Cal.3d 219, 235 [152 Cal.Rptr. 425, 590 P.2d 1] [discussing conservatorship
proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act and civil commitment
proceedings in general].
• Affirmative Defense of Medication People v. Bolden (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d
1591, 1600–1602 [266 Cal.Rptr. 724].
• Serious Difficulty Controlling Behavior People v. Sudar (2007) 158
Cal.App.4th 655, 662–663 [70 Cal.Rptr.3d 190] [applying the principles of
Kansas v. Crane and In re Howard N.].
Secondary Sources
5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Criminal Trial
§§ 816–819.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 86,
Insanity Trial, § 86.10[7] (Matthew Bender).
RELATED ISSUES
Extension of Commitment
The test for extending a person’s commitment is not the same as the test for
insanity. (People v. Superior Court (Williams) (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 477, 490
[284 Cal.Rptr. 601].) The test for insanity is whether the accused “was incapable of
CALCRIM No. 3453 DEFENSES AND INSANITY
960
0056
knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act or of
distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.”
(Pen. Code, § 25(b); People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.3d 765 [217 Cal.Rptr. 685,
704 P.2d 752.) In contrast, the standard for recommitment under Penal Code
section 1026.5(b) is whether a defendant, “by reason of a mental disease, defect, or
disorder [,] represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.” (People v.
Superior Court,supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at pp. 489–490; see People v. Wilder (1995)
33 Cal.App.4th 90, 99 [39 Cal.Rptr. 2d 247].)
DEFENSES AND INSANITY CALCRIM No. 3453
961
0057