People v. Williams

Charged with bank robbery by force or fear (Pen. Code, § 211), Maurice Williams was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to Patton State Hospital under section 1026. In July 1985, Williams was placed on “hospital parole.” (§ 1611 (since repealed).) Six months later he was placed on outpatient status under section 1026.2, retroactive to July 1985.

In March 1986, Williams applied for release from commitment on the ground his sanity had been restored. (§ 1026.2, subd. (e) .) After trial, the jury found Williams’s sanity had not been restored. Williams appeals, claiming the jury’s finding was based on an erroneous instruction. We agree and reverse for a new sanity hearing.

Procedural Background

Over Williams’s objection the court instructed the jury according to Cramer v. Tyars (1979) 23 Cal.3d 131 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 653 , 588 P.2d 793 ] and People v. De Anda (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 480 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 830 ] as follows: “In making the determination as to whether or not the defendant’s sanity is restored, you must disregard what effect any medication prescribed for the defendant’s mental condition might have on his behavior.

“Your decision should focus only on…

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1478 OPINION Charged with bank robbery by force or fear (Pen. Code, 1 § 211), Maurice Williams was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to Patton State Hospital under section 1026. In July 1985, Williams was placed on "hospital parole." (§ 1611 (since repealed).) Six months later he was placed on outpatient status under section 1026.2, retroactive to July 1985. In March 1986, Williams applied for release from commitment on the ground his sanity had been restored. (§ 1026.2, subd. (e) 2 .) After trial, the jury found Williams's sanity had not been restored. Williams appeals, claiming the jury's finding was based on an erroneous instruction. We agree and reverse for a new sanity hearing. *Page 1479 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND (1a) Over Williams's objection the court instructed the jury according to Cramer v. Tyars (1979) 23 Cal.3d 131 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 653 , 588 P.2d 793 ] and People v. De Anda (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 480 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 830 ] as follows: "In making the determination as to whether or not the defendant's sanity is restored,…

The test for determining if sanity has been restored under Penal Code 1 section 1026.2 is whether the applicant has improved to the extent he or she is no longer a danger to the health and safety of others, including himself or herself. ( People v. Allesch (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 365 , 372 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 314 ].) The applicant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence he or she is no longer a danger. ( In re Franklin (1972) 7 Cal.3d 126 , 147 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 496 P.2d 465 ].) The psychological experts who testified at Williams's restoration of sanity trial agreed Williams's schizophrenia was in remission due to the antipsychotic medication he was taking. According to Dr. Edward Calix, who for four weeks was Williams's psychologist at the conditional release program, if Williams ceased to take antipsychotic medication he could very well become suicidal. Dr. Calix referred to an episode in 1980 when Williams reported to Center City Hospital because of suicidal ideation. Dr. Calix also testified that Williams's participation in the program had been rather begrudging, and that he manifested very limited insight into the *Page 1484 necessity for him to maintain on…