Nance

I. BACKGROUND

On October 28, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on defendant’s application for outpatient treatment. Defendant was the only witness. After the defendant rested his case, the People made an oral motion “for a directed verdict in that, at this stage . . . the burden of proof has not been met by” defendant. The court explained it was struck by defendant’s “vacillation between whether or not he thinks he needs his medication, whether or not he thinks his medication is doing anything for him, whether or not he perceives his own condition and housing as necessary in terms of his view that he doesn’t have a mental illness.” The court found defendant had failed to meet his burden “primarily because of his own ability or inability, or refusal, to acknowledge his condition, his access to treatment, his involvement in

Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Because we do so, we need not address the People’s alternative argument that defendant’s recommitments under section 1026.5 rendered him ineligible to file an application under section 1026.2.

2 treatment, and the impact of the medication for which both Counsel and [defendant] have conceded…