Hudec

Hudec v. Superior Court

Good Law
181 Cal. Rptr. 3d 748·2015 Cal. LEXIS 1·60 Cal. 4th 815·339 P.3d 998
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 2015S213003California6,640 words

Opinion

Opinion

Werdegar, J.

A person found not guilty of a felony by reason of insanity may be committed to a state hospital for a period no longer than the maximum prison sentence for his or her offense or offenses (Pen. Code, § 1026.5, subd. (a)), but the commitment may be extended if, because of mental disorder, the person “represents a substantial danger” to others (id.., subd. (b)(1)). In the trial of that issue, “[t]he person shall be entitled to the rights guaranteed under the federal and State Constitutions for criminal proceedings.” (Id., subd. (b)(7).)

The question presented here is whether, in such a commitment extension hearing, the individual facing extended commitment has the right to refuse to take the witness stand. Like the Court of Appeal below, we conclude that by virtue of section 1026.5, subdivision (b)(7), a person facing extended commitment has the right to refuse to testify, a right constitutionally guaranteed criminal defendants.

Procedural Background

Charles Hudec, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, was found not guilty by reason of insanity of killing his father in 1981 and was committed to a state hospital for a period reflecting the maximum term for voluntary…

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.