Ladd

In this declaratory relief action the parties ask whether the state may constitutionally charge a state hospital patient for the cost of the patient's institutional care, support and maintenance following commitment pursuant to Penal Code section 1026. [1] At issue is the fairness and rationality of a statutory scheme which does not separate out protective costs from other costs of institutional care, and which holds certain groups of patients liable for their care while exempting others. Pursuant to this statutory scheme the trial court declared the state was entitled to reimbursement for the costs of support for a mental inmate who was involuntarily confined subsequent to being found not guilty by reason of insanity for the killing of her two sons. (Her estate consisted chiefly of her inheritance from her sons.) We conclude that the legislation does not violate state or federal equal protection principles and affirm.

In 1975 Gloria Beale Ladd killed her two teenage sons. After finding that she was insane at the time of the killings and had not recovered her sanity, the court rendered judgment committing her to Patton State Hospital for treatment. The…

In this declaratory relief action the parties ask whether the state may constitutionally charge a state hospital patient for the cost of the patient’s institutional care, support and maintenance following com *132 mitment pursuant to Penal Code section 1026. 1 At issue is the fairness and rationality of a statutory scheme which does not separate out protective costs from other costs of institutional care, and which holds certain groups of patients liable for their care while exempting others. Pursuant to this statutory scheme the trial court declared the state was entitled to reimbursement for the costs of support for a mental inmate who was involuntarily confined subsequent to being found not guilty by reason of insanity for the killing of her two sons. (Her estate consisted chiefly of her inheritance from her sons.) We conclude that the legislation does not violate state or federal equal protection principles and affirm.

I. Background

In 1975 Gloria Beale Ladd killed her two teenage sons. After finding that she was insane at the time of the killings and had not recovered her sanity, the court rendered judgment committing her to Patton State Hospital for treatment. The…

I concur in the conclusion reached by the majority opinion that the state does not deny equal protection of the law to individuals committed to a mental institution upon a finding that they are not guilty by *145 reason of insanity (Pen. Code, § 1026) 1 when it requires them to pay for their care. For me the question is relatively straightforward.

Ladd contends that she and all section 1026 committees are treated differently from inmates confined in state prisons who are given mental health care in a hospital but are not required to pay for their treatment. The parties concede that the class of section 1026 committees is not a suspect class nor is the requirement they pay for their care a burden upon a fundamental interest. That being so the statute creating the classification is only infirm constitutionally if “the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature’s actions were irrational.” (Vance v. Bradley (1979) 440 U.S. 93, 97 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 171, 176 , 99 S.Ct. 939 ].)

“It is fundamental to our system of jurisprudence that a person cannot be convicted…