People v. Fields

• Decision Date: 05 March 1965
• Docket Number: Cr. 8526
• Citation: 62 Cal.2d 538,399 P.2d 369,42 Cal.Rptr. 833
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 399 P.2d 369, 16 A.L.R.3d 708 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. N. K. FIELDS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 833

42 Cal.Rptr. 833

62 Cal.2d 538, 399 P.2d 369, 16 A.L.R.3d 708

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. N. K. FIELDS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 8526.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

March 5, 1965.

N. K. Fields, in pro. per., and Morris Lavine, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Albert W. Harris, Jr., and Robert R. Granucci, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

PEEK, Justice.

The People move to dismiss defendant's appeal from an order adjudging him insane within the meaning of section 1368 of the Penal Code and committing him to the Atascadero State Hospital until he is pronounced sane. It is urged that the order is not appealable.

Defendant was charged with the crime of receiving stolen property in violation of section 496 of the Penal Code. Prior to the date set for trial the court, on the motion of defendant's attorney, suspended the criminal proceedings and appointed two psychiatrists to examine defendant. Acting in his own behalf defendant then moved to set aside the order suspending criminal proceedings. When his motion was denied he discharged his court-appointed counsel and insisted on representing himself in the trial of the issue of sanity. At the conclusion of the six-day trial, the jury found him insane, and the court ordered him committed to Atascadero State Hospital for care and treatment until pronounced sane. This appeal followed.

Section 1368 of the Penal Code provides that, if at any time during the pendency of an action and prior to judgment a doubt arises as to the sanity of a defendant, the court must suspend all proceedings in the criminal prosecution and determine the question of the defendant's sanity. If he is found insane, the trial or judgment must be suspended until he is restored to sanity. Furthermore the court must order him committed by the sheriff to a state hospital for the care and treatment of the insane. (Pen.Code, § 1370.) If defendant returns to sanity, the superintendent shall certify that fact to the sheriff and district attorney, and the sheriff shall place defendant in custody subject to the criminal proceedings or until he is legally discharged. (Pen.Code, § 1372). It does not expressly appear from any of these sections whether or not an order of commitment is appealable.

In a proceeding under section 1368 a defendant is not charged with a criminal act and is not subject to criminal proceedings or punishment if he is found insane. It is a special proceeding rather than a criminal action. (People v. Lawson, 178 Cal. 722, 728, 174 P. 885; In re Shaw, 115 Cal.App.2d 753, 756, 252 P.2d 970; People v. Loomis, 27 Cal.App.2d 236, 239-240, 80 P.2d 1012.) Accordingly the right to appeal is governed by subdivision 1 of section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that an appeal may be taken from a final judgment entered in a special proceeding.

An order determining that a defendant is insane and directing that he be committed is a final determination of his mental condition at that time, and such an order could result in a confinement for life. Thus in Higgins v. United States, 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 650, 652, the court, in holding appealable an order committing a defendant charged with crime for treatment until restored to mental competency, stated that inasmuch 'as the defendant's mental disturbance may be of long duration, perhaps for life, and his trial may therefore be delayed over a very long time, and perhaps forever, the order adjudging him incompetent for trial has a phase of finality in it.'

Furthermore in analogous situations involving orders of commitment of mentally disordered sex offenders and narcotic addicts, it has been held that such orders of commitment are appealable as final orders in special proceedings. (In re De La O, 59 Cal.2d 128, 156, 28 Cal.Rptr. 489, 378 P.2d 793, 98 A.L.R.2d 725; People v. Gross, 44 Cal.2d 859, 860, 285 P.2d 630.) The fact that the commitments in these cases were made after rather than before conviction does not serve to distinguish them in any material sense from the present case insofar as the instant issues are concerned. In the situation in those cases, as here, the basis of appealability is that the proceedings are special proceedings, and the detention of the defendant follows from the order of the court in such special proceedings.

Although the superintendent of the state hospital to which a defendant is committed may subsequently determine that he is restored to sanity and can be returned for further proceedings in the criminal action, this does not mean that the order of commitment is interlocutory. The superintendent's determination in such a case is based upon circumstances relative to defendant's condition existing at the time of the superintendent's examination and constitutes neither a review of the original order of commitment nor a determination that it was erroneous.

The language in People v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.2d 136, 146, 47 P.2d 724, to the effect that the superintendent's determination is the final determination and that the proceeding before the judge is analogous to a preliminary examination must be read in the context used. In that case the defendant had been committed to a hospital and then returned to the superior court where he subsequently entered a plea of guilty at which time the question of his sanity again arose. In such situation the crucial question was not whether the original commitment was valid but whether the superintendent properly returned the defendant to the custody of the sheriff and whether the defendant was sane at the time of his plea. The language of the court was directed to the conclusiveness of the original adjudication of insanity in proceedings subsequent thereto rather than to whether the adjudication was final for purposes of appeal, and any implications to the contrary in that case are disapproved.

Unless a defendant may appeal from an adjudication that he is insane within the meaning of section 1368, the proceedings leading to the adjudication may never be reviewed. Such a result would follow, for example, where the criminal proceedings are dismissed while he is committed to the state hospital or where he...