In Re Howard N.

People v. Howard N.

Good Law
2005 Cal. LEXIS 2022·2005 Daily Journal DAR 2209·24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 866·35 Cal. 4th 117·106 P.3d 305
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 24, 2005S123722California7,876 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brown, J.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 1800 et seq. delineates procedures governing the extended detention of dangerous persons. In particular, it provides for the civil commitment of a person at the time he would otherwise be discharged by statute from a Youth Authority commitment. We consider whether this extended detention scheme violates due process because it does not expressly require a finding that the person’s mental deficiency, disorder, or abnormality causes serious difficulty in controlling behavior.

We conclude the extended detention scheme should be interpreted to contain such a requirement in order to preserve its constitutionality. However, because the jury was not instructed on this requirement, and there was little evidence defendant’s mental abnormality caused him serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior, we further conclude defendant is entitled to a new commitment proceeding. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment, which reversed the trial court’s judgment without remand.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant Howard N. was committed to the Youth Authority after he molested a three-and-a-half-year-old boy. His…

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.