Moore
Moore v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES CTY.
Opinion
Opinion
Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Phyllis Asayama and Roberta Schwartz, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.
Ardell Moore (Moore), the defendant in a petition by the People to commit him as a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA or the Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.), [1] seeks a writ of mandate directing respondent superior court to initiate a competency evaluation and to stay the SVPA proceeding until the issue of his mental competency can be determined.
We grant Moore's petition. In this case of first impression in California, we hold, as a matter of constitutional due process, that a defendant cannot be subjected to trial as an alleged sexually violent predator while mentally incompetent. Our decision is based on the following factors: (1) the liberty interest at stake in an SVPA proceeding is significant; (2) proceeding with an SVPA trial against an incompetent defendant poses an unacceptable risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty; (3) the governmental interest in protecting its citizens and treating sexually violent predators is not significantly burdened by providing for a competency…