People v. Blackwell, Cr. 20910

• Decision Date: 26 March 1981
• Docket Number: Cr. 20910
• Citation: 172 Cal.Rptr. 636,117 Cal.App.3d 372
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Grover BLACKWELL, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 636

172 Cal.Rptr. 636

117 Cal.App.3d 372

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Grover BLACKWELL, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 20910.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

March 26, 1981.

Hearing Denied June 24, 1981.

Quin Denvir (court-appointed), State Public Defender, Joel Kirshenbaum, Deputy State Public Defender, San Francisco, for defendant/appellant.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward P. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., William D. Stein and John H. Sugiyama, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff/respondent.

ELKINGTON, Acting Presiding Justice.

Charged with four sex-related felonies and having waived a trial by jury, defendant Grover Blackwell was, by the superior court, found not guilty by reason of insanity as to each of the offenses and committed, December 18, 1978, to a state hospital under the provisions of Penal Code section 1026.

Effective September 28, 1979, section 1026 and its related statutes, sections 1026a and 1027, were reorganized by the Legislature, becoming Penal Code sections 1026, 1026.1, 1026.2, 1026.5 and 1027.

Thereafter, in proceedings under the newly effective section 1026.2 (substantially similar to the earlier § 1026a) Blackwell, in the superior court, sought his discharge from the state hospital on "the ground that his sanity had been restored." Following an appropriate hearing a jury found that his "mental state has not improved to the extent that he is no longer a danger to the safety of others or himself." He was thereupon, January 9, 1980, recommitted to the state hospital.

Blackwell's appeal is from the order of January 9, 1980.

Blackwell first contends: "The trial court committed reversible error in instructing on the standard of proof to be applied at appellant's Penal Code section 1026a/1026.2 hearing A. The erroneous inclusion of the term 'or himself.' B. The inappropriate and overly broad definition of 'dangerous.' "

We initially consider what Blackwell characterizes "The erroneous inclusion of the term 'or himself.' "

The Penal Code has long provided, in effect, that one found not guilty by reason of insanity, of a crime of violence, shall under certain circumstances by confined in a state hospital for a minimum of 90 days before he may be released. Former Penal Code section 1026a and its successor statute, section 1026.2 have at the same time provided that a person so confined may apply to the superior court for his release therefrom after section 1026's 90-day period, on "the ground that his sanity has been restored, ..." Neither section 1026a nor section 1026.2 has stated the criteria for determining whether the sanity of the person so committed has been restored.

Upon Blackwell's Penal Code section 1026.2 proceedings, the superior court's instructions advised the jury that in order to establish that he had regained his sanity, he had the burden of proving "that he is no longer a danger to the safety of others or himself." (Emphasis added.) Thereafter, the jury's verdict found that Blackwell's mental state had not "improved to the extent that he is no longer a danger to the safety of others or himself." (Emphasis added.)

The instant argument is that the Legislature, by its September 28, 1979, reorganization, had removed the requirement, in order to establish restoration of his sanity, that Blackwell must convince the jury that he was no longer a danger to the safety of himself.

We find in the reorganized Penal Code sections some (three) suggestions that a person committed as was Blackwell, shall be discharged if he no longer "poses a serious threat of bodily harm to another person." More often the same statutes simply provide for release when "his sanity shall have been finally determined ...."

In our resolution of the problem we are aided by three cases of the state's high court.

In In re Slayback (1930) 209 Cal. 480, 288 P. 769, Ms. Slayback, situated as was Blackwell, had sought her discharge under Penal Code section 1026a. In fashioning the test for such a release that court held, in effect, that such persons would have recovered their sanity when "they become no longer a menace to the public nor dangerous to themselves." Following earlier authority, the court had reasoned: "It often becomes necessary to take into custody those who are mentally afflicted and detain them until they become no longer a menace to the public nor dangerous to themselves. 'Nothing can be clearer than the duty of the state to restrain and confine the insane, not only for their own safety and protection, but for the safety and protection of the public.... It is a necessity growing out of the inability of the mentally afflicted to care for themselves or prevent injury to others.' " (209 Cal., p. 490, 288 p. 769; emphasis added.)

In In re Franklin (1972) 7 Cal.3d 126, 145, 101 Cal.Rptr. 553, 496 P.2d 465, the court stated: "Both petitioner and the People join in the proposition that the relevant standard under section 1026a is not whether the person committed is no longer legally insane, but whether he has improved to the extent that he is no longer a danger to the health and safety of others, including himself.... We adopt the foregoing standard as applicable to proceedings under section 1026a." (Emphasis added.)

More recently, In re Moye (1978) 22 Cal.3d 457, 462, 149 Cal.Rptr. 491, 584 P.2d 1097, has held: "Although section 1026a is silent regarding the appropriate standard for determining whether one's 'sanity' has been restored, we have recently held that the proper test 'is not whether the person committed is no longer legally insane, but whether he has improved to the extent that he is no longer a danger to the health and safety of others, including himself....' ... Persons committed under section 1026 may discharge this burden by establishing 'by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are no longer a danger to the health and safety of themselves or others.' " (Emphasis added.)

Following the statutory revisions at hand the state's Courts of Appeal have held: "If the defendant is ordered committed then after 90 days he is entitled to a hearing to determine whether he remains a danger to himself or others and if not then he is entitled to his release. (Pen.Code, § 1026.2)" (People v. Froom (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 820, 832, 160 Cal.Rptr. 786; emphasis added.) "The proper test to determine whether the person committed is sane is to determine whether he has improved to the extent that he is no longer a danger to the health and safety of others, including himself ...." (People v. Balderas (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 942, 946, fn.5, 164 Cal.Rptr. 275.)

"(I)t is not to be presumed that the legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication." (County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie (1942) 19 Cal.2d 634, 644, 122 P.2d 526.) It must reasonably be said that the 1979 reorganization of the subject statutes gave no clear indication of a legislative intent to change the criteria for continued commitment of a violent offender found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Statutes must be reasonably interpreted. (Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 529, 536-537, 91 Cal.Rptr. 57, 476 P.2d 457.) It is unreasonable, we think, to ascribe to the Legislature a purpose that one committed upon a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, whose release, because of a mental condition, would pose a danger to himself, should nevertheless be discharged from custody.

Moreover, we find no substantial disaccord between the abbreviated language upon which Blackwell relies, i.e., "that he is no longer a danger to the safety of others," and that of Franklin, supra, and Moye, supra, i.e., "that he is no longer a danger to the health and safety of others, including himself."

We conclude that the law as stated by Franklin and Moye retains its vitality, and that Blackwell's instant argument is meritless.

We pass on to the second of Blackwell's claims of instructional error, "The inappropriate and overly broad definition of 'dangerous.' "

Although Blackwell now contends "that it was improper for the court to attempt to define the term 'dangerous' at all," it was upon his request that the trial court gave such a definition.

The jury were instructed: "A person is dangerous when he is likely to cause injury or pain. A person is dangerous when he may be reasonably likely to expose himself or others to injury."

We find no fault with the definition. (See Webster's New Internat. Dict. (3d ed.1965) (p. 573.)

Blackwell's remaining appellate contention is that: "The trial court committed reversible error in denying appellant's motion to either compel the prosecutor to produce the Atascadero records relied upon by Dr. Nemeth or strike the entire testimony of Dr. Nemeth."

Blackwell had been committed to the state hospital at Atascadero. As noted, he had by a Penal Code Section 1026.2 petition sought his discharge on "the ground that his sanity had been restored." The superior court hearing date had been set for Tuesday, January 8, 1980, and a deputy public defender, manifestly experienced in such matters, was appointed to represent Blackwell. The public defender was "aware of the fact that a doctor was going to be testifying from Atascadero," and that he would be testifying on the basis of his own observations of Blackwell and certain of the hospital's records. A pretrial hearing was held on Friday, January 4, at which the hearing's issues and related matters were discussed. The public defender gave no indication at the time that he was interested in securing hospital records, which the expected doctor witness would have read and which he could readily bring with him.

Dr. Nemeth of, and residing at, Atascadero State Hospital appeared as a...