Conservatorship of Gordon

Good Law
209 Cal. App. 3d 364·257 Cal. Rptr. 365
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 4, 1989Docket Nos. D007592, D008456California1,291 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] OPINION

In her closing argument the Department's counsel repeated testimony given by a mental health counselor to the effect that a conservatorship lasts for one year, that a conservatee may ask that it be terminated earlier and that different levels of restriction may be placed on the conservatee. Gordon's counsel made no objection to either the testimony or the argument.

On February 10, 1988, the jury returned a verdict finding Gordon gravely disabled. The court thereafter appointed a conservator for Gordon and permitted Gordon to be placed in a locked treatment facility.

However to the extent conservatees have been given the protection afforded criminal defendants, the protection has been required by the due process clause of the California Constitution. ( Conservatorship of Roulet, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 235 .) (2) The right to peremptory challenges, on the other hand, enjoys no constitutional protection. "Neither the state nor federal Constitution `requires that Congress or the California Legislature grant peremptory challenges to the accused…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.