Money v. Krall

Decision Date01 February 1982
Docket NumberCr. 5742,Nos. C,s. C
Citation128 Cal.App.3d 378,180 Cal.Rptr. 376
PartiesChristopher G. MONEY, as District Attorney, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. Keith Clayton KRALL, Objector and Appellant. In re Keith Clayton Krall on Habeas Corpus. iv. 6096 and
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION

PAULINE DAVIS HANSON, Associate Justice.

Appellant Keith Clayton Krall was civilly committed to the Department of Developmental Services on November 3, 1980, pursuant to a court finding that he was mentally retarded and dangerous to others. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 6500 et seq.) At the hearing in superior court, appellant's counsel stipulated that appellant was dangerous to others but denied that appellant was mentally retarded within the meaning of the statutes. In this proceeding, appellant argues that Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500 1 is unconstitutionally vague for failure to define "mentally retarded" persons, and that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that he is mentally retarded. After careful consideration of appellant's arguments and the record, we uphold the constitutionality of the statute and the finding of the trial court.

On September 25, 1980, the district attorney of San Luis Obispo County filed a petition to commit appellant to the Department of Developmental Services. The petition incorporated several medical reports and requested judicial notice of all other reports in superior court action numbers 15867 and 2869; the petition also requested appointment of the public defender to represent appellant pursuant to section 6500.

On October 15, 1980, a letter was filed by Mr. James R. Teigen of the Tri-Counties Regional Center for the Developmentally Disabled in response to the trial court's request under section 6504.5. Letters from Doctors Mosman and Bramwell, appointed under section 6507 and Evidence Code section 730, were received on October 20. Appellant appeared with the public defender at the hearing on the petition on October 21, 1980, and opposed the commitment. At the hearing, counsel for appellant stipulated that appellant is a danger to others; Doctors Bramwell, Mosman and Sharpe testified on the issue of mental retardation. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the court found true beyond a reasonable doubt the allegations of the petition that appellant was a mentally retarded person and a danger to himself or others within section 6500; findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a formal order committing appellant to the Department of Developmental Services were filed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

According to the medical reports filed with the superior court and the testimony of Doctors Bramwell, Mosman and Sharpe, Keith Clayton Krall was 23 years old at the time of the instant commitment and had been confined continuously in state hospitals since March 1971. The September 15, 1980, report of Craig C. Rath, Ph.D., staff psychologist at Patton State Hospital, provides this background information:

"The patient was born 4-10-57. He was adopted in an anemic condition at age 6 months .... As an infant he fell off a counter, striking his head, with unknown results. Developmental milestones were somewhat delayed.

"At age 9 months he was sitting; at 18 months crawling; standing at 20 months; walking at age 2 years; and talking at 3 years of age. Toilet training was accomplished at 3 years of age, at which time he was described as 'very resistive.' When age 3 he was said to be hyperactive and a 'loner' who was envious of his sibling. By age 5 he was being termed hyperactive, disruptive, roaming and unresponsive.

"Although placed temporarily at Deveneux [sic ] schools at age 8, by age 9 he had set two fires. A visit to a fire station and conversation with the fire marshal terminated this behavior. Numerous behavioral problems continued. In October, 1970, he took down the pants of a five-year-old boy and beat him up. This behavior was repeated in December of 1970 with a young girl, culminating in his commitment to Camarillo State Hospital from 3-10-71 to 6-23-75. In 4/72 he was charged with inserting his finger in the vagina of a 5-year-old girl and spanking her. Hospitalization at Camarillo continued until he apparently assisted in the rape of a woman. He was transferred to Atascadero State Hospital where he resided from 6-23-75 to 7-28-79. After some four years in that secure environment he was transferred back to Camarillo State Hospital where he resided from 9-28-79 to 1-9-80. At that time it was felt he was inappropriately placed at Camarillo, due to his propensity for taking advantage of lower-functioning residents.

"Admission to Patton State Hospital was effected by transfer from Camarillo State Hospital on 1-9-80 under the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code 6500 et seq. Since there was no open Regional Center case, he could not be housed on the units for the Developmentally Disabled and was placed in the Penal Code section of the Hospital. Behavior on the unit has been marginal since admission. He has had numerous interpersonal problems with peers, is quite litigious and has sexually exposed himself as recently as August, 1980."

Further details of appellant's prior behavior are provided in the written report of Dr. Bill E. Mosman, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist who interviewed appellant on October 10, 1980:

"Keith indicates that his difficulties extend way back to approximately 3 years of age when he began having conflict with neighbor girls. He remembers arguing with one and slugging her. At age 11, he indicates that it got rather difficult for his mother to 'watch me.' 'I was a roughhouse and being verbally abusive and aggressive and physically aggressive.' He recalls experiences of playing 'sexual show and tell' about this age, but assures me that he was not violent during those events. He then goes on to tell me about girls with whom he did play sexual show and tell, and that he would be secretly angry at his mother and take his anger out on the girls. 'I would fingerbang them and beat the shit out of them and say "Mom, I hate your guts." ' From age 10 to 11, he was placed at Deveraux School. During 1969, at age 12, he started molesting children and recalls 11 girls that he molested. The records indicate that he molested approximately five, but he indicates they were 11 in total. He was placed in Camarillo State Hospital for this, and during one of his leaves on pass he additionally molested two boys. Approximately at age 15, he molested a boy and 'I almost beat the boy to death with a board.' He indicates that he has molested a total of approximately 11 girls in 1969 and prior, he additionally molested two 5-year-old boys in 1970, in 1972 he molested one boy, and while at Camarillo in 1976 he and another patient raped a mentally retarded adult female. He assures me that he just did not do the rape at that point in time because the other man was '200 pounds and I wasn't going to kick him off.' When I asked him what he felt he might have done if the fellow was 120 pounds instead of 200 pounds he said, 'I sure would have kicked his ass off.' He further indicates that he probably would have 'got some' himself at that point in time. Since then he has had homosexual experiences in the state hospital system, and recalls that during the time I saw him a year ago, he was having homosexual relationships with some of the men on the ward because 'I was scared of women.' "

As indicated in the report of Dr. Rath, appellant, first committed under section 6500 in September 1979, was initially placed at Camarillo State Hospital. Thereafter, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting a less restrictive placement and, by agreement of the court, appellant and the Department of Developmental Services, appellant was transferred to Patton State Hospital in January 1980. Hospital records from both Camarillo and Patton indicate that appellant continued on many occasions to be verbally, physically and sexually assaultive.

Appellant has been the subject of psychological tests and evaluations for 18 years. Dr. Mosman noted that appellant's IQ has generally been in the 69 to 81 range, depending on his age and the test given. Dr. Mosman wrote: "There appears to be consistent agreement that his full-scale intelligence has been in the area of 80 to 83, that he has had some splinter skills higher than that, and certainly has had some splinter skills much lower than that."

However, there has been no "consistent agreement" regarding the proper diagnosis of appellant's mental condition, as illustrated by Dr. Rath's summary:

"8-66--Chronic Brain Syndrome with Behavioral Reaction (19.43)

6-71--Unsocialized Aggressive Reaction of Childhood (308.4) with Borderline Mental Retardation (310.4)

6-71--Paranoid Schizophrenia (295.30) with Organic Brain Syndrome and Mild Mental Retardation.

4-72--Paranoid personality (301.07) with [non] Psychotic Organic Brain Syndrome and Ganser Syndrome.

10-74--Paranoid Schizophrenia (295.30) with Organic Brain Syndrome and mental retardation.

6-75--Paranoid Personality (301.07); Non-psychotic Organic Brain Syndrome (309.20); Pedophilia (302.20[)] and Aggressive Sexuality (302.80).

2-76--Paranoid Personality (301.07); Non-psychotic Organic Brain Syndrome (309.20); Pedophilia (302.20); Aggressive Sexuality (302.80[)] and Chronic Undifferentiated Schizophrenia (295.90).

1-77--Paranoid Schizophrenia (295.30) with borderline I.Q.

12-77--Mental Retardation (789.00); Pedophilia (302.20) and Aggressive Sexuality (302.80).

10-79--Mental Retardation, not further...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • People v. Cuevas
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 29 Enero 2013
    ...such appeals due to technical mootness so that the important issues presented do not evade review. (E.g., Money v. Krall (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 378, 392, 180 Cal.Rptr. 376.) 5. As noted in part 2A, both documents were initially submitted as confidential. On appeal, both sides cite to the rep......
  • People v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 13 Mayo 2005
    ...as contained in section 1376, actually means in terms of assessing a person for mental retardation. (See Money v. Krall, supra, 128 Cal.App.3d at p. 397, 180 Cal.Rptr. 376.) The United States Supreme Court relied upon definitions promulgated by the American Association on Mental Retardation......
  • People v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 6 Diciembre 2004
    ...as contained in section 1376, actually means in terms of assessing a person for mental retardation. (See Money v. Krall, supra, 128 Cal.App.3d at p. 397, 180 Cal.Rptr. 376.) The United States Supreme Court relied upon definitions promulgated by the American Association on Mental Retardation......
  • People v. Barrett
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 30 Julio 2012
    ...existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior,” and appearing in the “developmental period.” ’ ” ( Money, supra, 128 Cal.App.3d 378, 397, 180 Cal.Rptr. 376, italics added [using “generally accepted technical meaning” of mental retardation to hold § 6500 is not unconstitutionally ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT