CACI No. 4012. Concluding Instruction

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2024 edition)

Download PDF
4012.Concluding Instruction
To find that [name of respondent] is gravely disabled, all 12 jurors must
agree on the verdict. To find that [name of respondent] is not gravely
disabled, only 9 jurors must agree on the verdict.
As soon as you have agreed on a verdict, the presiding juror must date
and sign the form and notify the [clerk/bailiff].
New June 2005; Revised May 2017
Directions for Use
Read this instruction immediately after CACI No. 5009, Predeliberation
There are many votes that are possible other than a unanimous 12-0 vote for gravely
disabled or a 9-3 or better vote for not gravely disabled. A vote other than one of
these will result in a mistrial and the option to retry the proceeding.
Sources and Authority
“The due process clause of the California Constitution requires that proof
beyond a reasonable doubt and a unanimous jury verdict be applied to
conservatorship proceedings under the LPS Act.” (Conservatorship of Roulet
(1979) 23 Cal.3d 219, 235 [152 Cal.Rptr. 425, 590 P.2d 1].)
“The LPS Act is silent as to whether the jury must unanimously agree on the
issue of grave disability. ‘[H]owever, the Act incorporates by reference Probate
Code procedures for conservatorships. The Probate Code provides for factual
determinations by a three-fourths majority . . . . Thus, the Legislature has
provided for less than unanimous jury verdicts in grave disability cases.’
(Conservatorship of Rodney M. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1269 [58
Cal.Rptr.2d 513].)
“The Legislature’s determination that a three-fourths majority vote applies in
LPS conservatorship proceedings is eminently sound in the context of finding a
proposed conservatee is not gravely disabled.” (Conservatorship of Rodney M.,
supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1271-1272.)
“Permitting a finding of no grave disability to be based on a three-fourths
majority coincides with Roulet’s goal of minimizing the risk of unjustified and
needless conservatorships. It also avoids unnecessary confinement of the
proposed conservatee while renewal proceedings are completed.”
(Conservatorship of Rodney M., supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 1270.)
Secondary Sources
3 Witkin, California Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Actions, § 104
2 California Conservatorship Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar) § 23.89
32 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 361A, Mental Health and Mental
Disabilities: Judicial Commitment, Health Services, and Civil Rights, § 361A.42
(Matthew Bender)

© Judicial Council of California.