People?v.?Tilbury?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?56?,?284?Cal.Rptr.?288;?813?P.2d?1318
[No.?S012984.?Aug?1,?1991.]THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?MICHAEL?GORDON?TILBURY,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?Orange?County,?No.?C-?53835,?Kathleen?E.?O’Leary,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Panelli,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Broussard,?Arabian?and?Baxter,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinions?by?Mosk?and?Kennard,?JJ.)
COUNSEL
Charles?R.?Khoury,?Jr.,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
Jean?F.?Matulis,?Joseph?A.?Ragazzo?and?Stacy?C.?Mickell?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendant?and?Appellant.?[54?Cal.3d?59]
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Steve?White?and?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Harley?D.?Mayfield,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Frederick?R.?Millar,?Jr.,?Robert?M.?Foster,?Jay?M.?Bloom?and?Janelle?B.?Davis,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION
PANELLI,?J.
The?question?before?us?is?whether?appellant,?who?has?been?found?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity?and?committed?to?a?state?hospital,?is?entitled?to?a?jury?trial?on?the?issue?of?his?eligibility?for?placement?in?a?community?mental?health?program?as?a?supervised?outpatient.?(See?Pen.?Code,???1026.2,?subd.?(e).)fn.?1?The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?appellant?was?entitled?to?a?jury?trial.?We?reverse.
Facts?and?Procedural?Background
On?April?4,?1984,?appellant?Michael?Gordon?Tilbury?went?on?a?shooting?spree?with?a?.22-caliber?rifle.?Insane,?he?believed?that?he?was?being?persecuted?by?secret?organizations,?bombarded?with?microwaves,?and?poisoned?with?drugs?in?the?water?supply.?During?this?episode?Tilbury?shot?at?and?tried?to?kill?several?persons,?including?police?officers.?Fortunately,?he?injured?only?one?person.
On?January?28,?1985,?following?treatment?to?restore?his?competence?to?stand?trial?(???1370,?1372),?Tilbury?pled?guilty?to?six?counts?of?attempted?murder,?three?counts?of?assault?with?a?firearm,?and?three?counts?of?assaulting?police?officers?with?a?firearm,?and?admitted?one?enhancement?for?inflicting?great?bodily?injury.?Pursuant?to?the?plea?bargain?Tilbury?waived?his?right?to?a?jury?trial?on?the?issue?of?sanity?(??1026,?subd.?(a))?and?submitted?that?question?to?the?court.?Based?upon?psychiatric?reports,?the?court?found?that?Tilbury?was?insane?at?the?time?of?the?offenses?and,?thus,?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity.?(Ibid.)?On?March?19,?1985,?after?additional?psychiatric?evaluation?(??1026,?subd.?(b)),?the?court?determined?that?Tilbury?had?not?fully?recovered?his?sanity?and?committed?him?to?Patton?State?Hospital?for?a?maximum?term?of?23?years?and?8?months.?(??1026.1,?subd.?(b).)
In?October?1987,?following?the?required?minimum?commitment?period?of?180?days?(??1602,?subd.?(a)),?the?director?of?Patton?State?Hospital?[54?Cal.3d?60]?recommended?that?Tilbury?be?placed?on?outpatient?status?pursuant?to?section?1603.?Because?the?county?mental?health?director?did?not?advise?the?court?that?Tilbury?would?benefit?from?that?status?(??1602,?subd.?(a)(2)),?the?court?disapproved?outpatient?status?as?it?was?required?to?do.?(??1601,?subd.?(a).)?The?hospital?director?recommended?outpatient?placement?again?in?April?and?October?1987.?For?the?same?reasons,?the?court?denied?the?recommendations.?None?of?these?hearings?were?pursuant?to?section?1026.2.
In?December?1987,?Tilbury?applied?for?supervised?outpatient?placement?on?his?own?behalf?(??1026.2,?subd.?(a))?and?requested?a?jury?trial.?Tilbury’s?counsel?argued?that?he?was?entitled?to?a?jury?under?In?re?Franklin?(1972)?7?Cal.3d?126?[101?Cal.Rptr.?553,?496?P.2d?465],?in?which?we?held?under?a?former?statute?that?juries?were?required?at?hearings?on?unconditional?release.?The?trial?court?denied?the?request?based?on?Barnes?v.?Superior?Court?(1986)?186?Cal.App.3d?969?[231?Cal.Rptr.?158],?in?which?the?Court?of?Appeal?held?under?the?current?statute?that?juries?were?not?required?at?placement?hearings.
At?the?ensuing?placement?hearing,?for?which?the?court?did?not?empanel?a?jury,?Tilbury?testified?that?he?had?recently?experienced?a?delusion?similar?to?that?which?preceded?his?1984?shooting?spree.?Based?on?Tilbury’s?testimony?and?on?the?reports?of?psychiatrists,?the?county?mental?health?department,?and?the?state?hospital,?the?court?denied?Tilbury’s?application.?On?appeal,?the?Court?of?Appeal?reversed?and?remanded?for?a?jury?trial.
Discussion
Statutory?Interpretation
We?consider?the?question?initially?as?a?matter?of?statutory?interpretation.?The?relevant?statute?does?not?purport?to?give?a?committed?person?the?right?to?[54?Cal.3d?61]?a?jury?at?the?hearing?on?outpatient?placement.?Instead,?the?statute?provides?that?”[t]he?court?shall?hold?a?hearing?to?determine?if?the?person?applying?for?restoration?of?sanity?would?no?longer?be?a?danger?to?the?health?and?safety?of?others,?including?himself?or?herself,?if?under?supervision?and?treatment?in?the?community.?If?the?court?at?the?hearing?determines?the?applicant?[meets?this?standard],?the?court?shall?order?the?applicant?placed?with?an?appropriate?local?mental?health?program?for?one?year.”?(??1026.2,?subd.?(e),?italics?added.)fn.?2?If?the?Legislature?had?intended?to?require?juries?at?placement?hearings,?it?knew?how?to?say?so?clearly.?In?the?same?statutory?scheme?the?Legislature?expressly?provided?for?juries?at?the?sanity?phase?of?criminal?trials?(??1026,?subd.?(a))fn.?3?and?at?hearings?to?recommit?at?the?end?of?the?maximum?term?(??1026.5,?subd.?(b)(4)).fn.?4
Even?though?the?Legislature?did?not?expressly?provide?for?jury?trials?on?the?issue?of?outpatient?placement,?Tilbury?advances?two?arguments?to?show?that?it?did?so?implicitly.?Neither?argument?is?persuasive.
First,?Tilbury?argues?that?the?statutory?term?”hearing”?actually?means?”jury?trial.”?Tilbury?bases?this?argument?on?Franklin,?supra,?7?Cal.3d?126,?in?which?we?held?that?a?committed?person?was?entitled?to?a?jury?at?the?[54?Cal.3d?62]?sanity-restoration?hearing?described?in?former?section?1026a.fn.?5?The?former?statute?referred?to?that?proceeding?simply?as?a?”hearing,”?without?expressly?requiring?a?jury.fn.?6?In?1984,?many?years?after?the?Franklin?decision,?the?Legislature?amended?the?statute?to?require?that?a?committed?person?spend?one?year?as?a?supervised?outpatient?before?applying?for?a?sanity-restoration?hearing.?(??1026.2,?subd.?(e),?added?by?Stats.?1984,?ch.?1416,???1,?p.?4983.)?Like?the?statute?we?interpreted?in?Franklin,?the?1984?amendment?once?again?uses?the?generic?term?”hearing,”?but?this?time?to?refer?to?the?newly?required?proceeding?on?the?committed?person’s?application?for?outpatient?placement.?Consequently,?to?complete?Tilbury’s?argument,?we?should?give?a?similar?interpretation?to?similar?language.
The?defect?in?this?argument?is?that?Franklin?mandated?juries?at?sanity-restoration?hearings?solely?on?equal?protection?grounds,?without?regard?to?statutory?language?or?legislative?intent.?(See?Franklin,?supra,?7?Cal.3d?at?pp.?148-149.)?We?did?not?hold?that?the?term?”hearing”?meant,?or?was?intended?to?mean,?”jury?trial.”
Second,?Tilbury?argues?that?we?can?infer?a?legislative?intent?to?provide?juries?at?placement?hearings?without?regard?to?the?statutory?language?because?the?Legislature?was?aware?of?Franklin?at?the?time?it?amended?the?statute?to?require?such?hearings.?However,?the?legislators’?awareness?of?Franklin?logically?suggests?no?more?than?that?they?took?it?for?granted?juries?would?continue?to?be?required?at?sanity-restoration?hearings.?This?was?all?that?Franklin?held.
Accordingly,?there?is?no?good?reason?to?believe?that?the?Legislature?actually?intended?to?require?jury?trials?on?the?issue?of?outpatient?placement.?This?conclusion?is?consistent?with?the?purpose?of?the?1984?amendment,?which?was?to?make?the?requirements?for?release?”stricter”?and?to?”prevent?premature?release.”?(See?Sen.?Com.?on?Judiciary,?Rep.?on?Sen.?Bill?No.?1984?(1983-1984?Reg.?Sess.)?(1984)?pp.?1,?2;?Assem.?Com.?on?Crim.?Law?and?[54?Cal.3d?63]?Public?Safety,?Rep.?on?Sen.?Bill?No.?1984?(1983-1984?Reg.?Sess.)?(1984)?p.?3.)?In?light?of?these?purposes,?it?is?far?more?reasonable?to?view?the?Legislature’s?imposition?of?a?qualifying?period?as?a?reaction?to?Franklin?rather?than?as?an?effort?to?require?jury?trials?at?an?earlier?phase?of?the?release?process.?Franklin’s?effect,?until?the?1984?amendment,?was?to?require?jury?trials?every?year?upon?demand,?no?matter?how?hopeless?the?case?for?unconditional?release.?After?the?1984?amendment,?a?committed?person?must?first?carry?the?lesser?burden?of?demonstrating?that?he?is?no?longer?a?danger?to?self?or?others?while?”under?supervision?and?treatment?in?the?community.”?(??1026.2,?subd.?(e).)
Equal?Protection
To?address?Tilbury’s?claim,?we?briefly?review?the?criminal?and?civil?commitment?schemes.?When?a?criminal?defendant?pleads?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity,?the?finder?of?fact?must?determine?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence?whether?the?defendant?was?insane?at?the?time?of?the?offense.?(??1026,?subd.?(a);?see?Franklin,?supra,?7?Cal.3d?at?pp.?147-148.)?It?is?the?defendant?who?must?raise?the?defense?and?who?bears?the?burden?of?proof.?(??1026,?subd.?(a);?see?People?v.?Baker?(1954)?42?Cal.2d?550,?564?[268?P.2d?705];?People?v.?Daugherty?(1953)?40?Cal.2d?876,?901?[256?P.2d?911].)?If?the?defendant?succeeds?in?proving?his?insanity?at?the?time?of?the?offense,?commitment?follows?unless?the?court?determines?that?the?defendant?has?fully?recovered?his?sanity.?(??1026,?subds.?(a),?(b).)?The?maximum?term?of?commitment?is?equal?to?the?longest?term?of?imprisonment?which?could?have?been?imposed?for?the?offenses?of?which?the?defendant?was?convicted.?(??1026.5,?subd.?(a)(1).)?If?the?state?at?the?end?of?the?maximum?term?wishes?to?continue?the?commitment,?it?must?bear?the?burden?of?proving,?in?a?jury?trial,?that?the?defendant?”by?reason?of?a?mental?disease,?defect,?or?disorder?represents?a?substantial?danger?of?physical?harm?to?others.”?(??1026.5,?subd.?(b).)?Any?ensuing?recommitment?is?for?two?years?only,?and?additional?recommitments?require?additional?jury?trials.?(??1026.5,?subd.?(b)(6),?(8).)
Of?course,?a?defendant?who?recovers?his?sanity?need?not?remain?confined?for?the?maximum?term.?Release?is?possible?at?any?time?following?a?mandatory,?180-day?commitment?period?(??1026.2,?subd.?(d))?if?the?defendant?demonstrates?his?fitness?for?release,?first?by?successfully?completing?one?year?under?supervision?in?a?community?mental?health?program?and?then?in?a?sanity-restoration?trial.?(??1026.2.?subd.?(e).)?[54?Cal.3d?64]
The?procedure?for?involuntary?civil?commitments?is?set?out?in?the?Lanterman-Petris-Short?Act.?(Welf.?&?Inst.?Code,???5000?et?seq.)?The?process?leading?to?commitment?ordinarily?begins?with?a?72-hour?period?of?intensive?treatment?and?evaluation.?(Id.,????5150,?5170,?5200,?5206.)?At?the?conclusion?of?the?72-hour?period,?the?professional?in?charge?of?the?treatment?facility?and?one?other?physician?or?psychologist?may?certify?the?person?for?an?additional?14?days?of?intensive?treatment.?(Id.,???5250?et?seq.)?Judicial?review?of?the?14-day?certification?is?permitted?before?a?commissioner,?referee,?or?certification?review?officer.?(Id.,????5254,?5256.1.)?Review?is?also?possible?through?the?writ?of?habeas?corpus.?(Id.,???5254.1.)?The?right?to?a?jury?trial?attaches?only?when?there?is?a?petition?to?extend?treatment?beyond?14?days,?or?to?establish?a?conservatorship?for?a?gravely?disabled?person.?(Id.,????5300-5303.1,?5350,?subd.?(d).)fn.?7?A?commitment?for?involuntary?treatment?automatically?terminates?in?180?days?(id.,???5304,?subd.?(b))?and?a?conservatorship?in?one?year?(id.,???5361).?The?continuance?of?a?commitment?or?conservatorship?past?the?end?of?the?designated?term?requires?an?additional?petition?and?jury?trial,?if?one?is?demanded.?(Id.,????5304,?subd.?(b),?5361,?5362,?subd.?(b).)fn.?8
A?civil?committee?or?gravely?disabled?conservatee?does?not?have?the?right?to?a?jury?trial?on?the?question?of?his?eligibility?for?release?prior?to?the?end?of?the?designated?term.?However,?both?may?invoke?the?writ?of?habeas?corpus.?(Welf.?&?Inst.?Code,????5254.1,?5358.7,?7250.)?A?gravely?disabled?conservatee,?in?addition,?may?petition?the?court?for?a?rehearing?as?to?his?status?(id.,???5364)?but?is?not?entitled?to?a?jury?at?that?hearing.?(Baber?v.?Superior?Court?(1980)?113?Cal.App.3d?955,?960-965?[170?Cal.Rptr.?353].)
To?summarize,?civil?and?criminal?commitments?each?begin?with?a?jury?trial,?after?any?emergency?treatment?or?pretrial?detention.?In?the?civil?context,?the?jury?trial?is?the?hearing?on?the?petition?for?involuntary?commitment?or?to?establish?a?conservatorship.?In?the?criminal?context,?the?jury?trial?is?the?sanity?phase?of?the?criminal?trial.?In?addition,?both?civil?and?criminal?committees?are?entitled?to?juries?at?the?conclusion?of?the?designated?term?of?commitment?if?there?is?a?petition?to?recommit.?Thus,?the?difference?between?the?civil?and?criminal?schemes?is?not?the?committed?person’s?right?to?a?jury?trial?but?the?amount?of?time?before?recommitment?is?required.?A?civil?commitment?automatically?terminates?after?180?days,?and?a?conservatorship?after?one?year.?A?criminal?commitment?automatically?terminates?at?the?end?of?the?variable?maximum?term?unless,?of?course,?the?defendant?has?already?demonstrated?his?sanity.?[54?Cal.3d?65]
In?Jones?v.?United?States?(1983)?463?U.S.?354?[77?L.Ed.2d?694,?103?S.Ct.?3043]?(Jones),?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?upheld?the?District?of?Columbia’s?substantially?similar?criminal?commitment?procedures.?As?in?California,?commitment?in?the?District?of?Columbia?followed?the?verdict?of?insanity?at?the?time?of?the?offense?and?the?court’s?determination?that?the?defendant?had?not?recovered?his?sanity.?Also?as?in?California,?the?committed?person?was?entitled?to?a?review?of?his?present?sanity?shortly?after?commitment,?although?not?by?a?jury.?(Id.,?at?pp.?356-359?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?700-702];?cf.????1026,?subd.?(a),?1026.2,?subds.?(d),?(e).)
The?committed?person?in?Jones?challenged?the?District?of?Columbia’s?procedures?as?violative?of?due?process?and?equal?protection.?He?claimed?that?the?verdict?of?insanity?at?the?time?of?the?offense?did?not?provide?a?constitutionally?sufficient?basis?for?commitment.?(463?U.S.?at?p.?363?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?704-705].)?Based?upon?his?assumption?that?the?verdict?did?not?provide?a?sufficient?basis?for?commitment,?Jones?also?claimed?that?equal?protection?principles?entitled?him?to?a?jury?at?a?mandatory?hearing?50?days?after?confinement?because?civil?committees?were?entitled?to?a?jury?trial?upon?commitment.?(Id.,?at?p.?362,?fn.?10?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?704].)
Rejecting?Jones’s?due?process?challenge,?the?high?court?held?that?the?verdict?of?insanity?adequately?supported?the?presumption?that?insanity?continues:?”[A]?finding?of?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity?is?a?sufficient?foundation?for?commitment?of?an?insanity?acquittee?for?the?purposes?of?treatment?and?the?protection?of?society.”?(Jones,?supra,?463?U.S.?at?p.?366?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?706].)?Moreover,?the?permissible?duration?of?confinement?need?not?be?limited?by?the?term?of?the?hypothetical?criminal?sentence.?”[W]hen?a?criminal?defendant?establishes?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence?that?he?is?not?guilty?of?a?crime?by?reason?of?insanity,?the?Constitution?permits?the?Government,?on?the?basis?of?the?insanity?judgment,?to?confine?him?to?a?mental?institution?until?such?time?as?he?has?regained?his?sanity?or?is?no?longer?a?danger?to?himself?or?society.”?(Id.,?at?p.?370?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?709].)
The?high?court’s?rejection?of?Jones’s?due?process?challenge?logically?compelled?the?rejection?of?his?equal?protection?challenge,?as?well.?Jones?argued?that?equal?protection?entitled?him?to?a?jury?at?the?mandatory?hearing?50?days?after?commitment?because?a?civil?committee?would?have?been?entitled?to?a?jury?at?the?time?of?commitment.?However,?since?the?criminal?commitment?was?based?on?the?verdict?of?insanity?in?the?criminal?trial,?and?since?that?procedure?satisfied?due?process,?it?followed?that?”the?relevant?equal?protection?comparison?concern[ed]?the?procedures?available?at?the?criminal?trial?and?at?a?civil-commitment?hearing.”?(Jones,?supra,?463?U.S.?at?p.?362,?fn.?10?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?704].)?Because?Jones?had?received?a?jury?trial?at?the?sanity?phase?of?the?criminal?trial,?equal?protection?was?satisfied.?(Ibid.?[?77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?704].)?[54?Cal.3d?66]
Our?reasoning?in?Franklin?is?partly?consistent?with?Jones?and?partly?inconsistent.?One?of?the?questions?before?us?in?Franklin?was?whether?the?required?waiting?period?between?the?verdict?of?insanity?in?the?criminal?trial?and?the?first?release?hearing?was?constitutional.fn.?9?As?the?high?court?would?later?recognize?in?Jones,?we?recognized?that?the?verdict?of?insanity?at?the?criminal?trial?supported?”a?presumption?of?continued?insanity.”?(Franklin,?supra,?7?Cal.3d?at?p.?141,?fn.?9.)?We?reasoned?that?”?’commitment?without?a?hearing?[on?present?sanity]?is?permissible?for?the?period?required?to?determine?present?mental?condition.?The?jury’s?finding?of?a?reasonable?doubt?as?to?defendant’s?sanity?at?the?time?of?the?offense?provides?sufficient?warrant?for?further?examination.’?”?(Franklin,?supra,?7?Cal.3d?at?p.?142,?quoting?Ragsdale?v.?Overholser?(D.C.?Cir.?1960)?281?F.2d?943,?948,?italics?omitted.)?In?other?words,?because?”the?defendant?[has]?had?the?burden?of?proving?his?insanity?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence,”?”it?is?reasonable?to?presume?…?that?defendant’s?insanity,?established?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence,?has?continued?to?the?date?of?trial?[on?present?sanity,?i.e.,?the?release?hearing].”?(Franklin,?supra,?7?Cal.3d?at?p.?141,?fn.?deleted.)
This?much?of?the?Franklin?opinion?is?entirely?consistent?with?Jones.?So?also,?we?assume,?is?our?explicit?assumption?in?Franklin?that?”California’s?initial?commitment?procedures?are?valid?only?because?the?person?committed?has?a?reasonable?opportunity?to?obtain?his?release.”?(Franklin,?supra,?7?Cal.3d?at?p.?145.)?Because?an?insanity?acquittee?is?entitled?to?a?hearing?on?outpatient?placement?180?days?after?commitment,?here,?as?in?Jones,?”there?is?assurance?that?every?acquittee?has?prompt?opportunity?to?obtain?release?if?he?has?recovered.”?(Jones,?supra,?463?U.S.?at?p.?366?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?706].)fn.?10
Franklin?differs?from?Jones,?however,?in?holding?that?postjudgment?hearings?on?present?mental?sanity?must?be?conducted?before?juries.?In?Franklin?we?”found?no?sufficient?reason?why?[an?insanity?acquittee’s]?status?necessarily?must?deny?him?the?jury?hearing?available?to?other?persons?committed?to?state?hospitals.”?(Franklin,?supra,?7?Cal.3d?at?p.?148;?see?Jones,?supra,?463?U.S.?at?pp.?364-366?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?705-706].)?We?then?proceeded?to?[54?Cal.3d?67]?compare?California’s?criminal?release?statute?with?various?civil?commitment?and?recommitment?statutes.?(Franklin,?supra,?7?Cal.3d?at?p.?148,?citing?Welf.?&?Inst.?Code,????1800-1803?[California?Youth?Authority?wards],?5302?[persons?committed?for?involuntary?treatment],?5350?[gravely?disabled?conservatees];?see?ante,?pp.?63-64.)?Because?persons?committed?civilly?were?entitled?to?juries?at?commitment?and?recommitment?hearings?under?those?statutes,?we?held?that?equal?protection?also?required?juries?at?criminal?release?hearings.?(Franklin,?supra,?7?Cal.3d?at?p.?148.)
Some?history?is?necessary?to?put?the?18-year-old?Franklin?holding?into?context.?The?statutes?in?effect?in?1973?did?not?provide?for?a?hearing?before?a?jury?at?any?time?after?the?determination?of?insanity?at?the?criminal?trial.?(See?former????1026,?1026a;?Stats.?1935,?ch.?318,????1,?2,?pp.?1075-1076,?as?amended?by?Stats.?1957,?ch.?1766,???1,?p.?3160.)?In?1979,?responding?to?criticism?by?this?court,?the?Legislature?amended?the?law?to?require?that?an?insanity?acquittee?be?either?released?or?recommitted?at?the?end?of?a?designated,?maximum?term.?The?maximum?term?is?equal?to?the?longest?term?of?imprisonment?which?could?have?been?imposed?for?the?offenses?that?the?person?committed.?(??1026.5,?added?by?Stats.?1979,?ch.?1114,???3,?pp.?4051-4053;?see?In?re?Moye?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?457?[149?Cal.Rptr.?491,?584?P.2d?1097]?[requiring?recommitment?of?insanity?acquittees?under?civil?commitment?procedures?at?the?end?of?the?maximum?term?provided?for?the?underlying?offense].)?If?the?state?wishes?to?recommit?at?the?expiration?of?the?maximum?term,?it?must?prove?in?a?jury?trial?that?the?defendant,?by?reason?of?a?mental?disease,?defect,?or?disorder,?continues?to?represent?a?substantial?danger?of?physical?harm?to?others.?(??1026.5,?subd.?(b).)?Thus,?the?current?statute?shifts?to?the?state?at?the?end?of?the?maximum?term?the?burden?of?proving?that?confinement?continues?to?be?necessary.
These?changes?in?the?law?since?Franklin,?as?well?as?the?high?court’s?decision?in?Jones,?make?it?unnecessary?to?require?a?jury?in?every?postjudgment?hearing?on?present?mental?sanity?when?the?defendant?has?pled?and?proved?his?own?insanity?at?the?criminal?trial?before?a?jury,?if?one?was?demanded.?Even?though?success?at?the?placement?hearing?is?a?prerequisite?to?eventual?release,?equal?protection?does?not?give?a?criminal?committee?the?right?to?a?jury?at?such?hearings?because?civil?committees?likewise?do?not?have?the?right?to?juries?at?release?hearings,?which?in?the?civil?context?take?the?form?of?habeas?corpus?proceedings?or?court?hearings?to?reconsider?a?gravely?disabled?conservatee’s?status.?(See?ante,?pp.?63-65.)?In?Franklin,?as?already?mentioned,?we?made?a?different?comparison:?we?compared?criminal?release?procedures?with?civil?commitment?and?recommitment?procedures.?(See?Franklin,?supra,?7?Cal.3d?at?p.?148,?and?the?statutes?cited?therein.)?However,?the?correct?comparison?is?articulated?in?Jones:?When?a?defendant’s?commitment?is?based?on?the?judgment?of?insanity?at?the?criminal?trial,?”the?relevant?[54?Cal.3d?68]?equal?protection?comparison?concerns?the?procedures?available?at?the?criminal?trial?and?at?a?civil-commitment?hearing.”?(Jones,?supra,?463?U.S.?at?p.?362,?fn.?10?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?704],?italics?added.)
Because?criminal?and?civil?committees?enjoy?the?right?to?jury?trials?at?the?same?stages?of?the?commitment?process,?equal?protection?is?not?offended.?Although?the?law?treats?insanity?acquittees?differently?with?respect?to?the?amount?of?time?before?recommitment?is?required,?differences?in?criminal?and?civil?commitment?procedures?need?only?be?justified?by?a?rational?basis.?(See?Jones,?supra,?463?U.S.?at?p.?362,?fn.?10?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?704];?Buthy?v.?NY?Com’r?of?Office?of?Mental?Health?(2d?Cir.?1987)?818?F.2d?1046,?1049;?Benham?v.?Ledbetter?(11th?Cir.?1986)?785?F.2d?1480,?1485.)?Such?differences?reflect?”the?widely?and?reasonably?held?view?that?insanity?acquittees?constitute?a?special?class?that?should?be?treated?differently?from?other?candidates?for?commitment.”?(Jones,?supra,?463?U.S.?at?p.?370?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?709].)?The?rational?basis?for?California’s?different?treatment?of?insanity?acquittees?is?that?such?a?person?initiates?the?commitment?process?himself?by?pleading?and?proving?that?mental?illness?has?led?him?to?commit?a?crime.?These?circumstances?substantially?reduce?the?risk?of?erroneous?commitment,?or?commitment?for?harmless,?abnormal?behavior,?that?justifies?the?need?for?frequent?recommitment?hearings?in?the?civil?context.
There?is?no?need?in?this?case?to?reconsider?Franklin’s?holding?that?a?criminally?committed?person?is?entitled?to?a?jury?at?the?sanity-?restoration?trial.?Since?the?Legislature?was?aware?of?that?holding?at?the?time?it?amended?the?statute?and?made?no?effort?to?abrogate?it,?we?assume?that?juries?at?sanity-restoration?hearings?have?become?part?of?California’s?current?statutory?scheme.?In?view?of?Jones,?however,?there?is?no?reason?to?extend?Franklin’s?holding?to?the?first-stage?hearing?on?outpatient?placement.
Due?Process
Second,?there?is?no?reason?to?believe?that?a?jury’s?decision?on?outpatient?placement?would?be?more?reliable?than?a?judge’s.?The?decision?to?be?made?is?whether?”the?applicant?will?not?be?a?danger?to?the?health?and?safety?of?others,?including?himself?or?herself,?while?under?supervision?and?treatment?in?the?community.”?(??1026.2,?subd.?(e).)?Juries?have?no?more?expertise?in?predicting?future?dangerousness?than?judges.?Moreover,?in?the?event?of?an?erroneous?decision?the?committed?person?has?recourse?to?the?writ?of?habeas?corpus?and?to?direct?appeal?(see?Code?Civ.?Proc.,???904.1,?subd.?(b)),?which?are?the?same?mechanisms?that?ensure?the?reliability?of?jury?verdicts.
Third,?the?state?has?an?obvious?and?valid?interest?in?avoiding?the?cost?of?unnecessary?jury?trials.?On?this?point,?it?is?well?to?bear?in?mind?that?Franklin’s?effect?was?to?require?the?state?to?provide?jury?trials?every?year?upon?demand,?even?for?a?committed?person?who?could?not?reasonably?hope?[54?Cal.3d?70]?to?prove?that?he?would?no?longer?be?a?danger?to?self?or?others.?The?current?statute?mitigates?this?unnecessary?burden?by?requiring?a?committed?person?first?to?demonstrate?that?he?would?not?be?dangerous?to?self?or?others?”while?under?supervision?and?treatment?in?the?community.”?(??1026.2,?subd.?(e).)?A?person?who?cannot?satisfy?this?lower?standard?cannot,?by?definition,?satisfy?the?higher?standard?for?unconditional?release.?(See?Barnes?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?186?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?976.)
In?summary,?the?relevant?factors?do?not,?singly?or?in?combination,?support?the?conclusion?that?it?violates?due?process?for?a?judge?to?consider?an?insanity?acquittee’s?application?for?placement?in?a?community?mental?health?program.?Insanity?acquittees?already?enjoy?substantial?procedural?safeguards?at?placement?hearings,?and?the?addition?of?juries?would?make?such?hearings?more?costly?and?burdensome?without?making?their?outcomes?more?reliable.?Under?these?circumstances,?due?process?does?not?require?more?than?the?statute?already?provides.fn.?11
The?Legislature’s?effort?to?deal?with?the?problem?of?criminal?commitments?is?entitled?to?as?much?judicial?deference?as?constitutional?principles?permit.?[5]?As?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?recognized,?”?'[w]hen?[a?legislative?body]?undertakes?to?act?in?areas?fraught?with?medical?and?scientific?uncertainties,?legislative?options?must?be?especially?broad?and?courts?should?be?cautious?not?to?rewrite?legislation?….’?”?(Jones,?supra,?463?U.S.?at?p.?370?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?709],?quoting?Marshall?v.?United?States?(1974)?414?U.S.?417,?427?[38?L.Ed.2d?618,?626,?94?S.Ct.?700].)?To?require?jury?trials?at?placement?hearings?without?the?clearest?constitutional?necessity?would?send?the?message?that?we,?not?the?Legislature,?make?the?rules?in?this?area,?and?thus?stifle?further?legislative?efforts?to?fashion?appropriate?solutions.?[54?Cal.3d?71] Disposition
The?decision?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?reversed.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Broussard,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?and?Baxter,?J.,?concurred.
MOSK,?J.
I?dissent.?The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?a?person?found?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity?is?constitutionally?entitled?to?a?jury?determination?of?his?or?her?mental?state?after?a?statutorily?prescribed?180-day?evaluation?and?treatment?period.?The?Court?of?Appeal?reached?the?correct?result,?and?therefore?I?would?affirm?its?judgment.
A?former?patient?of?mental?hospitals?in?Long?Beach?and?Brawley,?and?a?self-described?paranoiac?suffering?from?delusions?of?persecution,?Tilbury?ran?amok?with?a?rifle?in?April?1984,?shooting?at?several?citizens?and?peace?officers.?He?was?charged?with?12?felonies,?including?multiple?counts?of?assault?with?a?deadly?weapon?(Pen.?Code,???245,?subd.?(a)(2)),fn.?1?assault?with?a?firearm?on?a?peace?officer?(??245,?subd.?(c)),?and?attempted?murder?(???187,?664).?He?entered?guilty?pleas?to?six?counts?of?attempted?murder,?and?admitted?enhancements?for?use?of?a?firearm?and?for?the?infliction?of?great?bodily?injury?with?respect?to?one?of?the?counts.?(???12022.5,?12022.7.)?It?was?agreed?that?his?maximum?term?of?imprisonment?would?be?23?years,?8?months,?and?that?after?accepting?the?guilty?pleas?the?court?could?determine?Tilbury’s?sanity?during?the?shooting?spree?on?the?basis?of?psychiatrists’?reports.?The?court?found?him?insane?during?his?crimes?and?committed?him?to?Patton?State?Hospital.
Three?times?in?1986?and?1987?the?director?of?Patton?State?Hospital?recommended?that?Tilbury?be?released?to?outpatient?treatment,?on?the?ground?that?he?was?no?longer?a?danger?to?himself?or?others.?(??1603,?subd.?(a)(1).)?Each?time?the?director?of?the?Orange?County?community?mental?health?program?disagreed?with?the?recommendation?of?release,?and?the?court?therefore?denied?the?request,?as?it?must?when?the?community?program?director?maintains?that?release?is?not?justified.?(Id.,?subd.?(a)(2).)
Tilbury?then?sought?release?to?a?supervised?outpatient?treatment?program?under?an?alternative?release?procedure,?embodied?in?section?1026.2,?on?the?ground?that?he?would?pose?no?danger?to?himself?or?others?under?supervision?in?the?community.?(??1026.2,?subd.?(e).)?He?requested?a?jury?trial?on?the?current?state?of?his?mental?health.?The?trial?court?ruled,?however,?that?defendant?was?not?entitled?to?a?jury?trial,?and?heard?the?matter?itself.?[54?Cal.3d?72]
At?the?hearing,?Tilbury?testified?that?he?participated?in?30?hours?of?group?therapy?per?week?at?Patton?State?Hospital.?He?emphasized?his?participation?in?the?thought-disorder,?anger-management?and?relapse-?prevention?groups,?and?in?Narcotics?Anonymous.?On?cross-examination,?Tilbury?admitted?he?had?a?delusion?seven?months?before,?lasting?several?days,?that?there?was?cocaine?in?the?water?at?Patton?State?Hospital.?Though?Tilbury?had?a?similar?delusion?the?day?of?his?rifle-wielding?outburst,?the?court?denied?outpatient?status?on?another?factual?ground,?finding?Tilbury?to?be,?”because?of?his?anger?management?problems,?[still]?a?danger?to?himself?and?others,?particularly?to?others.”
The?Court?of?Appeal?reversed.?It?held?that?In?re?Franklin?(1972)?7?Cal.3d?126?[101?Cal.Rptr.?553,?496?P.2d?465]?(hereafter?Franklin),?required?a?jury?to?pass?judgment?on?Tilbury’s?sanity?at?the?end?of?an?initial?treatment?and?evaluation?period?that,?by?statute,?follows?a?judgment?of?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity.?Although?the?current?statutory?scheme?has?changed?so?that?instead?of?winning?immediate?release?a?patient?found?sufficiently?sane?to?return?to?society?must?now?spend?one?year?in?a?supervised?outpatient?program,?the?Court?of?Appeal?reasoned?that?the?outpatient-treatment?decision?is?a?critical?procedural?juncture,?requiring?access?to?a?jury.?Otherwise,?the?Court?of?Appeal?observed,?Tilbury?could?be?caught?in?a?classic?Catch-22:?although?under?Franklin?Tilbury?would?have?the?right?to?a?jury?review?of?his?fitness?for?unrestricted?release,?it?is?possible?that?during?his?almost?24-year?term?of?confinement?no?jury?would?have?the?chance?to?undertake?this?review,?because?a?judge?might?deny?access?to?the?prerequisite?supervised?outpatient?program.
I
A?person?found?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity?has?more?than?one?avenue?to?change?status.?If?a?patient?who?committed?an?act?that?posed?a?serious?threat?of?bodily?harm?to?another?can?persuade?both?the?community?program?director?(an?individual?defined?in???1026,?subd.?(h);?see???1605,?subd.?(a))?and?the?director?of?the?state?hospital?where?he?or?she?is?confined?that?release?to?outpatient?status?is?warranted,?such?status?may?be?granted?under?section?1600?et?seq.?(See????1601,?subd.?(a),?1603.)?In?the?alternative,?the?individual?may?seek?relief?under?section?1026.2.?For?a?patient?in?Tilbury’s?position,?the?requirements?of?section?1026.2?are?easier?to?satisfy,?for?the?concurrence?of?the?community?program?director?is?not?needed?if?the?director?of?the?state?hospital?where?the?patient?is?confined?recommends?release?to?outpatient?treatment.?(??1026.2,?subd.?(a).)
Before?1986,?the?predecessors?of?section?1026.2?mandated?a?minimum?90-day?commitment?for?a?person?found?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity.?(See?[54?Cal.3d?73]?former????1026,?1026a.)?After?that?period,?the?patient?could?be?released?outright?if?the?trier?of?fact?was?persuaded?that?the?patient’s?sanity?had?been?restored.?The?former?scheme?did?not?define?”sanity.”
A?more?complex?procedure?is?now?in?force,?embodied?in?section?1026.2.fn.?2?Subdivision?(e)?thereof?provides?that?once?the?hospital?director?has?said?the?patient?should?be?released,?”[t]he?court”?must?hold?a?”hearing”?to?determine?whether?”the?person?applying?for?restoration?of?sanity?would?no?longer?be?a?danger?to?the?health?and?safety?of?[self?or]?others?…?if?under?supervision?and?treatment?in?the?community.”?If?”the?court”?decides?the?patient?is?a?danger?neither?to?self?nor?others,?the?patient?must?be?placed?in?”an?appropriate?local?mental?health?program?for?one?year.”?(Ibid.)?Otherwise?the?patient?must?wait?one?year?before?again?applying?for?release?to?outpatient?treatment.?(??1026.2,?subd.?(j).)?After?the?year?has?elapsed,?”[t]he?court?…?shall?have?a?trial?to?determine?if?sanity?has?been?restored,?which?means?the?applicant?is?no?longer?a?danger?to?the?health?and?safety?of?[self?or]?others?….”?(??1026.2,?subd.?(e).)?The?patient?has?the?burden?of?showing?fitness?for?release,?either?to?an?outpatient?program?or?for?outright?release?after?a?year?in?the?program,?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence.?(??1026.2,?subd.?(k).)
The?majority?conclude?that?the?relevant?statutory?language?evinces?no?legislative?intent?to?require?access?to?a?jury.?Under?the?rules?of?statutory?construction,?however,?the?Legislature?is?deemed?to?have?preserved?the?right?to?a?jury?trial?at?the?end?of?the?180-day?postcommitment?evaluation?and?treatment?regimen?that?takes?place?within?the?confines?of?a?state?hospital.?(See????1026,?subd.?(a),?1026.2,?subd.?(d).)
Under?the?pre-1986?scheme,?and?hence?under?the?virtually?identical?scheme?now?slated?to?resume?in?1994,?the?patient?was?entitled?to?a?jury?trial?at?the?end?of?the?initial?evaluation?period?under?confinement?in?the?state?hospital.?This?right?found?its?genesis?in?Franklin,?supra,?7?Cal.3d?126.?Franklin?considered?whether?a?person?found?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity?was?entitled?to?a?jury?trial?on?the?question?of?fitness?for?release?to?society?under?former?section?1026a.?Former?section?1026a?provided?that?after?an?initial?90-day?evaluation?and?treatment?period?in?a?state?hospital,?if?”the?court,”?in?a?”hearing,”?found?the?patient’s?sanity?had?been?restored,?the?patient?must?be?released?outright.
Writing?for?a?unanimous?court,?Justice?Burke?concluded?that?equal?protection?required?the?”?’essential?safeguard’?”?(7?Cal.3d?at?p.?148)?of?a?jury?trial?[54?Cal.3d?74]?on?request?when?the?patient?sought?release?after?the?initial?90-day?evaluation?and?treatment?period:?”Although?petitioner’s?status?as?a?member?of?a?special?or?exceptional?class?justifies?certain?differences?in?commitment?procedure,?including?mandatory?or?discretionary?prehearing?commitment?…?and?imposition?…?of?the?burden?of?proving?…?fitness?for?release,?we?find?no?sufficient?reason?why?his?status?necessarily?must?deny?him?the?jury?hearing?available?to?other?persons?committed?to?state?hospitals.”?(Ibid.)
Thus,?when?the?Legislature?chose?to?enact?the?current?statutory?scheme,?existing?law?required?a?jury?trial.fn.?3?Current?section?1026.2?expresses?no?intent?to?abrogate?Franklin.?Its?drafters?added?only?two?significant?requirements,?neither?bearing?on?access?to?a?jury:?that?the?first?year?after?release?be?spent?in?a?supervised?outpatient?program?in?the?community,?after?which?the?patient’s?dangerousness?to?self?or?others?would?again?be?reviewed;?and?that?the?patient?spend?one?hundred?eighty?days?in?the?hospital?before?seeking?release.?We?must?therefore?presume?that?the?Legislature?intended?to?preserve?Franklin’s?rule.?(Bailey?v.?Superior?Court?(1977)?19?Cal.3d?970,?977,?fn.?10?[140?Cal.Rptr.?669,?568?P.2d?394];?Kusior?v.?Silver?(1960)?54?Cal.2d?603,?618?[7?Cal.?Rptr?129,?354?P.2d?657].)
A?case?that?reached?the?same?result?as?the?majority,?Barnes?v.?Superior?Court?(1986)?186?Cal.App.3d?969?[231?Cal.Rptr.?158]?(hereafter?Barnes)?approached?the?statutory?construction?issue?somewhat?differently.?It?found?significant?the?Legislature’s?use?of?”hearing”?and?”trial”?to?describe?the?procedures?whereby?a?patient?may?seek?release.?Yet?Barnes?reviewed?the?legislative?history?behind?the?enactment?of?subdivision?(e)?only?briefly,?and?did?not?consider?the?language?of?section?1026.2?as?a?whole?in?determining?that?the?Legislature?meant?something?different?by?”hearing”?and?”trial.”
After?examining?the?history?and?wording?of?the?statute?I?agree?with?another?Court?of?Appeal?that?in?fact?”[s]ection?1026.2?uses?’hearing’?and?’trial’?interchangeably.?(See,?e.g.,???1026.2,?subds.?(b),?(d),?(f),?(i),?(k).)?No?distinction?is?made?based?on?the?presence?or?absence?of?a?jury,?and?we?are?unable?to?divine?the?source?for?such?a?differentiation.”?(People?v.?Superior?Court?(Almond)?(1990)?219?Cal.App.3d?607,?612?[268?Cal.Rptr.?375]?(hereafter?Almond)?[holding?that?the?People?have?a?right?to?a?jury?trial?when?the?patient,?already?on?outpatient?status,?seeks?to?have?supervision?ended?and?to?gain?outright?release].)fn.?4?[54?Cal.3d?75]
The?statutory?language?buttresses?the?conclusion?of?Almond.?One?striking?example,?section?1026.5,?subdivision?(b)(4),?provides?in?part:?”The?court?shall?conduct?a?hearing?on?the?petition?for?extended?commitment.?The?trial?shall?be?by?jury?unless?waived?by?both?the?person?and?the?prosecuting?attorney.”?(Italics?added.)fn.?5?Section?1026.2?is?no?less?self-contradictory,?though?less?obviously?so.?Subdivision?(e)?thereof?defines?both?the?”hearing”?and?the?”trial”?as?”court”?proceedings?in?which?the?patient’s?danger?to?self?or?others?will?be?evaluated.?No?discernible?difference?exists?between?the?nature?of?the?proceedings,?except?that?the?”hearing”?is?to?occur?first?and?the?”trial”?a?year?later.?Subdivision?(k)?provides?that?in?”any?hearing”?under?section?1026.2?the?patient?bears?the?burden?of?proof?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence;?but?because?the?section?contemplates?two?separate?proceedings?to?evaluate?mental?state?in?subdivision?(e),?the?burden?rule?of?subdivision?(k)?clearly?is?intended?to?apply?to?both?the?”hearing”?and?the?”trial”?described?in?subdivision?(e).?Finally,?subdivision?(a)?of?section?1026.2?provides?that?whether?the?patient?is?confined?to?the?hospital?and?thus?seeking?a?first-stage?release?”hearing”?(subd.?(e)),?or?is?already?in?outpatient?treatment?under?section?1601?and?hence?is?seeking?a?second-stage?release?”trial”?(subd.?(e)),?the?court?shall?give?notice?of?the?”hearing”?date?to?decide?the?patient’s?status.?Thus?the?statute?reinforces?Almond’s?conclusion?that?if?the?Legislature?intended?to?differentiate?a?”hearing”?from?a?”trial,”?the?source?and?nature?of?any?such?distinction?are?unfathomable.
Nor?does?the?legislative?history?suggest?any?intent?to?assign?a?distinct?meaning?to?each?term;?rather,?the?committee?reports?confirm?the?lack?of?any?such?intent.?The?report?of?the?Assembly?Committee?on?Criminal?Law?and?Public?Safety?announced?that?the?minimum?confinement?period?will?rise?to?180?days,?from?90,?before?a?patient?may?apply?for?”a?sanity?restoration?hearing.”?(Assem.?Com.?Rep.,?Com.?on?Crim.?Law?and?Public?Safety,?p.?2,?on?Sen.?Bill?No.?1984?(1983-1984?Reg.?Sess.).)?After?a?year?in?an?outpatient?program,?the?patient?may?seek?”a?sanity?restoration?trial.”?(Id.?at?pp.?5-6.)?At?first,?this?language?suggests?that?the?Assembly?committee?meant?to?differentiate?the?two?proceedings.?But?that?suggestion?is?immediately?refuted?by?other?language?in?the?committee’s?analysis,?which?recites?that?after?the?year?of?outpatient?treatment?the?patient?will?be?entitled?to?”a?sanity?restoration?hearing.”?(Id.?at?p.?5.)?Thus,?the?Assembly?committee?analysis?used?”hearing”?and?”trial”?interchangeably?and?no?particular?significance?can?be?attached?to?the?desultory?use?of?one?word?in?lieu?of?another.
The?Senate?committee?analysis?similarly?reveals?a?lack?of?intent?to?distinguish?between?”trial”?and?”hearing”:?it?simply?refers?to?both?proceedings?as?[54?Cal.3d?76]?a?”hearing.”?(Sen.?Com.?Rep.,?Com.?on?Judiciary,?p.?5,?on?Sen.?Bill?No.?1984?(1983-1984?Reg.?Sess.).)
Nor?do?I?perceive?any?special?significance?to?be?attached?to?the?word?”hearing”?as?a?matter?of?law.?While?the?word?often?conjures?an?image?of?an?administrative?or?judicial?proceeding?before?a?referee?or?a?judge,?we?have?previously?defined?a?hearing?as?any?”proceeding?where?evidence?is?taken?to?the?end?of?determining?an?issue?of?fact?and?a?decision?made?on?the?basis?of?that?evidence.”?(People?v.?Pennington?(1967)?66?Cal.2d?508,?521?[58?Cal.Rptr.?374,?426?P.2d?942].)?Thus,?”hearing”?subsumes?”trial.”
Franklin?uses?the?terms?”jury?hearing”?and?”jury?trial”?interchangeably?to?describe?the?constitutionally?mandated?procedural?requirements?that?attach?to?proceedings?to?determine?whether?a?civilly?committed?person?is?fit?for?release.?(7?Cal.3d?at?p.?148.)?And?Franklin?does?not?lack?company;?indeed,?both?the?Legislature?and?the?courts?have?implicitly?acknowledged?the?lack?of?any?necessary?difference?between?”trial”?and?”hearing.”?(See,?e.g.,???1538.5,?subd.?(d)?[illegally?seized?evidence?”shall?not?be?admissible?against?the?movant?at?any?trial?or?other?hearing”];????1026.2,?subd.?(k),?and?1026.5,?subd.?(b)(4),?discussed?ante;?see?also?Cal.?Law?Revision?Com.?com.,?Deering’s?Ann.?Evid.?Code?(1986?ed.)???145,?p.?20?[suggesting?”hearing”?encompasses?trial?and?other?proceedings];?People?v.?Ivenditti?(1969)?276?Cal.App.2d?178,?180,?fn.?2?[80?Cal.Rptr.?761]?[at?second?proceeding?on?People’s?petition?to?commit?defendant?as?a?drug?addict,?statute?forbade?defendant?to?waive?his?right?to?”a?second?hearing?with?a?jury,?only”];?People?v.?Gallegos?(1970)?4?Cal.App.3d?93,?95-96?[83?Cal.Rptr.?911]?[“the?nature?of?the?hearing?(by?jury?or?by?judge?alone)?is?not?of?jurisdictional?dimension”].)
The?Legislature?has?stated?that?in?1994?the?law?will?revert?to?that?under?which?Franklin?was?decided.fn.?6?Had?the?Legislature?desired?that?only?a?judge?then?hear?petitions?for?conditional?release,?it?would?have?taken?note?of?our?explicit?observation?in?Franklin?that?”[i]t?is?noteworthy?that?section?1026a?does?not,?by?its?terms,?preclude?a?jury?trial”?(7?Cal.3d?at?p.?149),?and?would?have?specified?that?only?a?judge?would?hear?the?case.?While?Franklin’s?constitutional?reasoning?might?have?made?any?such?attempt?futile,?legislative?direction?in?the?version?to?take?effect?in?1994?would?at?least?have?undercut?Franklin’s?statutory?conclusions.?The?Legislature’s?failure?to?modify?a?scheme?under?which?we?found?a?right?to?jury?trial?confirms?that?it?had?no?intent?to?have?a?judge?necessarily?decide?Tilbury’s?mental?state.?[54?Cal.3d?77] II
Constitutional?considerations?also?compel?a?conclusion?that?Tilbury?was?entitled?to?a?jury?trial?after?the?initial?evaluation?and?treatment?period.
First,?the?scheme?offends?equal?protection?principles.?There?is?no?rational?basis?for?granting?the?right?of?a?jury?trial?to?some?civilly?committed?persons?on?the?issue?of?eligibility?for?release?(Welf.?&?Inst.?Code,????5302,?5303,?5304,?subd.?(b))?while?denying?the?same?to?criminally?committed?persons,?who?may?be?no?more?dangerous?than?others?who?are?entitled?to?a?jury?(see?Morse,?Excusing?the?Crazy:?The?Insanity?Defense?Reconsidered?(1985)?58?So.Cal.L.Rev.?779,?832).fn.?7There?is,?therefore,?no?rational?basis?on?which?to?distinguish?Tilbury?from?members?of?another?class?entitled?to?a?jury?trial.?(In?re?Gary?W.?(1971)?5?Cal.3d?296,?304?[96?Cal.Rptr.?1,?486?P.2d?1201];?see?also?United?States?v.?Brown?(D.C.?Cir.?1973)?478?F.2d?606,?611?[dictum;?”no?justification”?for?denying?insanity?acquittees?trial?by?jury?prior?to?commitment?when?prospective?civilly?committed?persons?enjoy?that?right].)fn.?8
The?majority?declare?that?in?Franklin?we?wrongly?compared?criminal?release?statutes?to?various?civil?commitment?and?recommitment?statutes.?To?the?extent?that?Franklin?compared?commitment?and?release?statutes,?the?juxtaposition?may?be?questioned.?But?Franklin?did?not?err?in?contrasting?civil?recommitment?statutes?with?criminal?release?statutes?for?equal?protection?purposes.?I?cannot?fathom?the?distinction?the?majority?would?draw?between?the?two:?if?a?patient?is?not?recommitted?under?a?civil?statute,?the?result?is?release;?if?the?patient?is?released?under?the?Penal?Code,?the?result?is?also?release.?[54?Cal.3d?78]
The?majority’s?conclusion,?following?this?analysis,?that?the?relevant?equal?protection?comparison?concerns?the?procedures?available?at?the?criminal?trial?and?at?a?civil?commitment?hearing,?arguably?states?the?view?of?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?on?that?issue.?The?question?here,?however,?is?whether?equal?protection?is?offended?when?a?patient?committed?for?an?act?that?would?be?proscribed?under?the?Penal?Code?must?wait?decades?for?a?jury?determination?of?the?need?for?recommitment,?while?some?civilly?committed?persons?are?entitled?to?a?jury?resolution?of?the?same?question?in?a?matter?of?months?(Welf.?&?Inst.?Code,????5302,?5303,?5304,?subd.?(b)).?To?ask?the?question?is?to?answer?it,?unless?it?can?be?demonstrated?that?patients?committed?from?criminal?courts?are?less?susceptible?of?restoration?to?sanity?than?those?civilly?committed.
With?regard?to?due?process,?it?is?true?that?juries?have?not?been?found?necessary?in?other?proceedings?that?can?result?in?deprivations?of?liberty.?I?therefore?agree?with?much?of?the?majority’s?analysis?of?the?general?principles?underlying?that?constitutional?right.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?69.)?Nevertheless,?I?conclude?that?the?scheme?before?us?does?violate?due?process?for?other?reasons.
First,?it?is?arbitrary?to?provide?access?to?community?review?of?the?patient’s?fitness?for?release?as?an?afterthought?but?to?deny?it?at?the?crucial?procedural?stage.?Barnes?relied?on?its?view?that?the?first-?stage?proceeding?is?a?lower?hurdle?than?the?second?to?reject?a?due?process?claim?(186?Cal.App.3d?at?pp.?975-976),?and?the?majority?agree.?But?as?amicus?curiae?observes,?that?notion?is?misconceived.?In?the?first?phase,?a?patient’s?fitness?to?leave?a?life?under?lock?and?key?and?resume?life?in?the?community?is?at?issue.?This?is?a?far?more?critical?determination?than?that?made?in?the?second?phase,?when?the?only?question?is?whether?the?patient?has?spent?a?successful?year?in?the?community?and?hence?no?longer?requires?supervision.?The?first?step?is?the?major?hurdle,?for?it?confers?on?the?patient?conditional?but?real?reintegration?into?the?community.?To?draw?on?the?language?of?contract?or?property?law,?this?status?will?be?revoked?only?on?failure?of?a?condition?subsequent-peaceful?coexistence?with?society?for?one?year.?Entry?into?the?supervised?program?is?the?critical?juncture,?the?moment?at?which?the?full?company?of?the?community’s?and?the?patient’s?interests?must?take?center?stage;?all?that?remains?to?be?decided?at?the?second?phase?is?whether?the?previous?judgment?of?the?trier?of?fact?was?sound.
Second,?the?scheme?before?us?violates?due?process?because?it?arbitrarily?conditions?the?length?of?time?a?patient?must?await?a?jury?hearing?not?on?current?dangerousness,?but?on?the?nature?of?the?act?committed.?Tilbury?may?have?recovered?his?sanity?just?as?quickly?as?a?neighboring?patient?confined?after?being?charged?with?a?much?less?serious?felony.?Yet?the?neighbor?has?[54?Cal.3d?79]?access?to?a?jury?in?a?year?or?two,?while?Tilbury?must?possibly?wait?decades.?(See?generally???1026.5.)?A?patient?who?committed?misdeeds?that?could?otherwise?have?resulted?in?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?could?remain?confined?for?life?without?access?to?jury?review,?though?he?or?she?might?have?recovered?sanity?as?quickly?as?a?patient?originally?charged?with?a?far?lesser?offense.?While?this?disparity?also?merits?scrutiny?on?equal?protection?grounds,?I?believe?at?a?minimum?that?it?is?arbitrary?and?hence?violates?due?process.?For?example,?a?minimally?disturbed?patient?originally?charged?with?a?tax?offense?may?have?to?wait?three?years?(see?Rev.?&?Tax.?Code,???19405)?before?a?jury?review?of?his?or?her?mental?state,?after?which?he?or?she?can?remain?confined,?while?a?much?more?dangerous?patient?charged?with?simple?assault?could?be?free?after?six?months?(see???241,?subd.?(a)).?(See???1026.5,?subds.?(a)(1),?(3),?&?(b)(1),?(3).)
The?Supreme?Court?of?Canada?very?recently?held?that?that?country’s?insanity-acquittee?scheme?offends?a?constitutional?guarantee?against?arbitrary?detention?and?imprisonment?because?it?provided?that?”Where?the?accused?is?found?to?have?been?insane?at?the?time?the?offence?was?committed,?the?court?…?shall?order?that?he?be?kept?in?strict?custody?…?until?the?pleasure?of?the?lieutenant?governor?of?the?province?is?known.”fn.?9?(R.?v.?Swain?(Can.?1991)?1?S.C.R.?933,?958?[63?Can?Crim.?Cas.?3d?481,?495],?quoting?former?Can.?Crim.?Code,?R.S.C.?(1970)?ch.?C-34,???542(2).)?The?justice?commanding?a?majority?concluded,?”The?detention?order?is?automatic,?without?any?rational?standard?for?determining?which?individual?insanity?acquittees?should?be?detained?and?which?should?be?released.?…?The?duty?of?the?trial?judge?to?detain?is?unqualified?by?any?standards?whatsoever.?I?cannot?imagine?a?detention?being?ordered?on?a?more?arbitrary?basis.”?(Id.?at?p.?1012?[63?Can.?Crim.?Cas.?3d?at?p.?535].)?”There?is?no?time?requirement?within?which?the?Lieutenant?Governor?must?act?….?In?fact,?the?wording?of?the?legislation?does?not?require?the?Lieutenant?Governor?to?ever?make?an?order.”?(Id.?at?p.?1016?[63?Can.?Crim.?Cas.?3d?at?p.?538.].)
Our?statutory?scheme?does?not?offend?due?process?in?quite?the?same?manner.?But?if?the?offensive?elements?in?our?scheme?are?different,?they?are?no?less?Kafkaesque.?Inability?to?reach?a?jury?because?a?judge?declines?to?advance?the?case,?and?variations?in?the?time?that?must?elapse?before?jury?review?is?available?according?to?prior?act?rather?than?current?mental?state-these?restrictions?are?hardly?less?arbitrary?than?the?scheme?held?unconstitutional?in?Canada.?Because?the?first?proceeding?is?a?critical?procedural?juncture?of?the?magnitude?we?contemplated?in?Franklin,?and?access?to?the?outpatient?program?”becomes?the?sine?qua?non?to?freedom-the?key?to?the?[54?Cal.3d?80]?door”?(Barnes,?supra,?186?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?980?[dis.?opn.?of?Poch?,?J.]),?I?cannot?agree?that?the?statutory?scheme?satisfies?due?process.
As?the?Court?of?Appeal?herein?reasoned,?”Such?commitments?are,?as?we?have?seen?frequently?in?the?history?of?many?countries,?and?occasionally?our?own,?subject?to?misguided?or?malicious?manipulation.?Those?confined?for?potentially?lengthy?periods?in?institutions?populated?with?the?criminally?insane?should?be?accorded?a?reasonable?opportunity?for?periodic?citizen?review?for?this,?if?no?other,?reason.”?Without?the?opportunity?for?citizen?review,?it?is?conceivable?that?Tilbury?could?remain?confined?for?a?quarter?of?a?century?even?though?a?jury?would?declare?his?fitness?for?supervised?release,?as?has?the?medical?director?at?Patton?State?Hospital.?A?becalmed?ship?sails?not?a?league?closer?to?land?because?the?winds?may?someday?blow;?nor?does?Tilbury?move?an?inch?closer?to?freedom?because?a?jury?may?theoretically?hear?him?out?someday?during?his?23-plus-year?sentence.
The?majority?also?declare?that?habeas?corpus?is?a?safeguard?against?abuse.?I?agree?that?habeas?corpus?is?a?substantial?remedy.?As?Justice?Poch??observed?in?Barnes,?however,?judicial?review?of?a?judge’s?factual?findings?cannot?replace?the?right?to?trial?by?jury.?(186?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?979?[dis.?opn.?of?Poch?,?J.].)?A?patient?may?feel?greater?freedom?to?argue?before?a?jury?that?”the?system”?has?meted?out?unfair?treatment?than?before?a?perceivedly?less?sympathetic?audience?of?professionals,?be?they?judges?or?psychiatrists.fn.?10
III
Because?society?is?understandably?ambivalent?about?releasing?those?who,?though?adjudged?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity,?may?have?committed?grave?[54?Cal.3d?81]?acts,?a?word?is?in?order?about?the?policy?rationale?behind?having?a?jury?decide?fitness?for?release?to?supervised?treatment?in?the?community.
It?must?be?stressed?that?there?are?few?insanity?acquittals.?(See?Morse,?Excusing?the?Crazy:?The?Insanity?Defense?Reconsidered,?supra,?58?So.Cal.L.Rev.?779,?832.)?California’s?standard?for?a?finding?of?insanity?is?stringent:?in?essence,?a?defendant?must?have?lost?touch?with?reality,?for?he?or?she?must?prove?by?a?preponderance?of?the?evidence?an?incapability?”of?knowing?or?understanding?the?nature?and?quality?of?his?or?her?act?and?of?distinguishing?right?from?wrong?at?the?time?of?the?commission?of?the?offense.”?(??25,?subd.?(b).)?The?People?do?not?suggest?that?Franklin’s?requirement?of?a?jury?trial?has?resulted?in?the?release?of?patients?who?ought?to?have?remained?confined.?Indeed,?it?is?not?unknown?for?the?prosecution?itself?to?demand?jury?review?of?a?patient’s?mental?state?when?the?latter?would?prefer?to?be?heard?by?a?judge.?(Almond,?supra,?219?Cal.App.3d?607.)?Jurors?must?be,?and?can?be,?trusted?to?know?they?are?charged?with?a?grave?duty,?and?to?carry?out?that?duty?soberly.?Finally,?there?is?no?reason?to?believe?that?trial?by?jury?imposes?too?great?a?burden?on?prosecutors’?offices.?A?trial?of?the?issue?must?take?place?every?year?in?any?event?(??1026.2,?subd.?(j));?to?have?a?jury?decide?the?issue?would?not?significantly?increase?the?burden?on?judicial?or?prosecutorial?resources.
In?sum,?I?conclude?that?the?Legislature?did?not?intend?to?change?existing?law?requiring?a?jury?trial?at?the?end?of?the?initial?treatment?and?evaluation?period,?and?that?access?to?a?jury?is?constitutionally?required.?I?therefore?dissent.
KENNARD,?J.
I?dissent?for?the?reasons?expressed?in?parts?II?and?III?of?Justice?Mosk’s?dissenting?opinion.
FN?1.?All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code?unless?otherwise?noted.
FN?2.?Section?1026.2,?subdivision?(e),?sets?out?the?standards?that?a?committed?person?must?satisfy?to?qualify?for?outpatient?treatment,?the?first?stage,?and?for?unconditional?release,?the?second?stage.?The?statute?provides,?in?relevant?part:
“The?court?shall?hold?a?hearing?to?determine?if?the?person?applying?for?restoration?of?sanity?would?no?longer?be?a?danger?to?the?health?and?safety?of?others,?including?himself?or?herself,?if?under?supervision?and?treatment?in?the?community.?If?the?court?at?the?hearing?determines?the?applicant?will?not?be?a?danger?to?the?health?and?safety?of?others,?including?himself?or?herself,?while?under?supervision?and?treatment?in?the?community,?the?court?shall?order?the?applicant?placed?with?an?appropriate?local?mental?health?program?for?one?year.?All?or?a?substantial?portion?of?the?program?shall?include?outpatient?supervision?and?treatment.?The?court?shall?retain?jurisdiction.?The?court?at?the?end?of?the?one?year,?shall?have?a?trial?to?determine?if?sanity?has?been?restored,?which?means?the?applicant?is?no?longer?a?danger?to?the?health?and?safety?of?others,?including?himself?or?herself.?The?court?shall?not?determine?whether?the?applicant?has?been?restored?to?sanity?until?the?applicant?has?completed?the?one?year?in?the?appropriate?local?mental?health?program.?…”
This?version?of?the?statute?is?operative?until?January?1,?1994.?On?that?date,?the?prior?version?of?the?statute,?as?amended?by?Statutes?1984,?chapter?1416,?section?1,?page?4982,?will?again?take?effect.?(See?fn.?5,?post.)
FN?3.?Section?1026,?subdivision?(a),?provides?in?part:
“If?the?jury?shall?find?the?defendant?guilty,?or?if?the?defendant?pleads?only?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity,?then?the?question?whether?the?defendant?was?sane?or?insane?at?the?time?of?the?offense?shall?be?promptly?tried,?either?before?the?same?jury?or?before?a?new?jury?in?the?discretion?of?the?court.?…”?(Italics?added.)
FN?4.?Section?1026.5,?subdivision?(b)(4),?provides?in?part:
“The?court?shall?conduct?a?hearing?on?the?petition?for?extended?commitment.?The?trial?shall?be?by?jury?unless?waived?by?both?the?person?and?the?prosecuting?attorney.?…”?(Italics?added.)
FN?5.?Former?section?1026a,?which?has?been?amended?and?renumbered?as?section?1026.2?(Stats.?1979,?ch.?1114,???2,?p.?4051;?Stats.?1984,???1,?ch.?1416,?p.?4982),?is?presently?inoperative?but?will?again?take?effect?on?January?1,?1994.?The?statute?is?identical?in?relevant?part?to?the?statute?in?effect?at?the?time?of?the?Franklin?decision.?Subdivision?(d)?of?section?1026.2?provides,?in?relevant?part:
“No?hearing?upon?the?application?for?release?shall?be?allowed?until?the?person?committed?shall?have?been?confined?or?placed?on?outpatient?status?or?on?parole?under?Section?1611?for?a?period?of?not?less?than?90?days?from?the?date?of?the?order?of?commitment.?If?the?finding?of?the?court?is?adverse?to?releasing?the?person?on?the?ground?that?sanity?has?not?been?restored,?no?application?shall?be?filed?by?the?person?until?one?year?has?elapsed?from?the?date?of?hearing?upon?the?last?preceding?application.?In?any?hearing?authorized?by?this?section,?the?burden?of?proving?that?sanity?has?been?restored?shall?be?upon?the?applicant.?…”
FN?6.?See?footnote?5,?ante.
FN?7.?Similarly,?a?narcotics?addict?who?has?been?charged?with?or?convicted?of?a?crime?is?entitled?to?a?jury?trial?before?commitment?to?the?Department?of?Corrections?for?confinement?in?the?narcotics?detention,?treatment,?and?rehabilitation?facility.?(Welf.?&?Inst.?Code,????3050,?3051,?3108.)
FN?8.?A?ward?of?the?California?Youth?Authority?is?likewise?entitled?to?a?jury?trial?if?the?state?wishes?to?extend?the?detention?past?the?end?of?the?designated?term.?(Welf.?&?Inst.?Code,???1801.5;?see?In?re?Gary?W.?(1971)?5?Cal.3d?296,?305?[96?Cal.Rptr.?1,?486?P.2d?1201].)
FN?9.?The?waiting?period?was?90?days?when?we?decided?Franklin.?In?1984?the?Legislature?increased?it?to?180?days,?as?the?American?Law?Institute?recommended?in?its?Model?Penal?Code.?(Stats.?1984,?ch.?1488,???3.5,?p.?5202;?see?Model?Pen.?Code,???4.08(5);?Assem.?Com.?on?Crim.?Law?and?Public?Safety,?Rep.?on?Sen.?Bill?No.?1984?(1983-1984?Reg.?Sess.)?(1984)?p.?5?[noting?the?recommendation?in?the?Model?Penal?Code];?Sen.?Com.?on?Judiciary,?Rep.?on?Sen.?Bill?No.?1984?(1983-1984?Reg.?Sess.)?(1984)?p.?6?[same].)
FN?10.?As?an?additional?safeguard,?the?court?must?also?order?an?evaluation?of?the?insanity?acquittee?by?the?community?program?director?or?a?designee?immediately?following?the?verdict?of?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity?and?”prior?to?making?[an]?order?directing?that?the?[acquittee]?be?confined?….”?(??1026,?subd.?(b).)?The?Legislature?added?this?provision?after?our?decision?in?Franklin,?supra.?(See?Stats.?1975,?ch.?1274,???1,?p.?3390.)
FN?11.?The?Court?of?Appeal?in?this?case?expressed?its?concern?that?commitments?to?mental?institutions?”are,?as?we?have?seen?frequently?in?the?history?of?many?countries,?and?occasionally?our?own,?subject?to?misguided?or?malicious?manipulation.”?(Cf.?Barnes?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?186?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?977?(dis.?opn.?of?Poch?,?J.)?[comparing?California’s?criminal?commitment?procedures?with?the?”Gulag”].
We?believe?that?this?concern?is?vastly?overstated,?for?several?reasons.?First,?it?is?the?defendant-not?the?government-who?initiates?the?criminal?commitment?by?pleading?and?proving?insanity.?Second,?we?have?no?reason?to?believe?that?superior?court?judges?will?engage?in?”malicious?manipulation”?to?extend?commitments.?In?the?unlikely?event?that?such?a?thing?should?occur,?defendants?have?recourse?to?direct?appeal?and?to?the?writ?of?habeas?corpus-the?same?procedural?mechanisms?that?ensure?the?reliability?of?jury?verdicts.?Third,?a?criminal?committee?is?automatically?entitled?to?a?jury?trial?at?the?expiration?of?the?maximum?term.?(??1026.5,?subd.?(b)(3).)?Tilbury’s?maximum?term?is?long?only?because?he?committed?a?large?number?of?serious?crimes,?including?six?attempted?murders.?By?comparison,?if?he?had?committed?a?robbery?he?would?have?been?entitled?to?a?jury?trial?in?five?years.?If?he?had?committed?a?simple?assault,?his?commitment?would?have?ended?in?six?months;?the?Penal?Code?does?not?authorize?extension?of?the?criminal?commitment?of?an?insanity?acquittee?whose?crime?was?a?misdemeanor.?(??1026.5,?subds.?(a)(3),?(b)(1).)
FN?1.?Further?unlabeled?references?are?to?this?code.
FN?2.?The?pre-1986?scheme?is?scheduled?to?again?take?effect?on?January?1,?1994.?(See???1026.2,?subd.?(m).)
FN?3.?The?majority?criticize?Franklin?for?comparing?criminal?release?statutes?to?civil?commitment?and?recommitment?statutes.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?pp.?66,?68;?see,?post,?pp.?77-78.)?For?statutory?construction?purposes,?however,?the?point?is?irrelevant.
FN?4.?For?this?reason?and?others?outlined?herein,?the?Legislature?may?wish?to?reexamine?the?statutory?scheme?before?its?scheduled?1994?expiration?date.
FN?5.?The?majority?invoke?the?same?language?but?reach?a?different?conclusion?regarding?its?significance.?(See?maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?61,?fn.?4.)
FN?6.?See?future?section?1026.2,?to?take?effect?January?1,?1994.?As?is?true?of?the?current?statute,?future?section?1026.2?contains?ambiguities?and?inconsistencies:?subdivision?(d),?for?instance,?refers?to?”parole”?under?section?1611,?a?statute?that?was?abolished.?(Stats.?1984,?ch.?1488,???11,?p.?5210.)
FN?7.?It?seems?obvious?that?a?judge?is?no?more?able?to?predict?violent?tendencies?in?the?long?run?than?a?juror.?Indeed,?mental?health?professionals’?ability?to?predict?future?dangerousness?is?at?best?questionable.?(See?id.?at?p.?828;?Barefoot?v.?Estelle?(1983)?463?U.S.?880,?920-922?[77?L.Ed.2d?1090,?1121-1123,?103?S.Ct.?3383]?[dis.?opn.?of?Blackmun,?J.];?People?v.?Burnick?(1975)?14?Cal.3d?306,?325-326?[121?Cal.Rptr.?488,?535?P.2d?352]?[“Psychiatrists?themselves?would?be?the?first?to?admit?that?however?desirable?an?infallible?crystal?ball?might?be,?it?is?not?among?the?tools?of?their?profession.”];?People?v.?Murtishaw?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?733,?768-769?[175?Cal.Rptr.?738,?631?P.2d?446].)
FN?8.?In?support?of?its?view?that?it?did?not?deny?Barnes?equal?protection?to?refuse?him?access?to?a?jury,?Barnes,?supra,?186?Cal.App.3d?969,?also?observed?that?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?section?3151?permits?an?administrative?board?to?decide?whether?to?end?the?commitment?of?a?narcotics?addict?not?convicted?of?any?crime?in?favor?of?outpatient?status.?I?do?not?at?this?time?undertake?an?extended?exploration?of?the?narcotics?addict?commitment?statutes,?but?note?that?the?members?of?the?board?to?which?Barnes?referred?should?”have?a?broad?background?in?law,?sociology,?law?enforcement,?medicine,?or?education,?and?shall?have?a?deep?interest?in?the?rehabilitation?of?narcotic?addicts.”?(Welf.?&?Inst.?Code,???3150,?subd.?(a).)?Whether?a?similar?board?to?decide?insanity?acquittees’?release?eligibility?should?be?created?is,?of?course,?a?legislative?prerogative.?The?Oregon?Revised?Statutes?(ORS)?provide?for?a?board?of?like?composition?that?decides?whether?individuals?with?Tilbury’s?status?may?be?conditionally?or?absolutely?released.?(ORS?161.325-161.351,?161.385(2);?see?Adams?v.?Psychiatric?Sec.?Review?Bd.?(1980)?290?Ore.?273?[621?P.2d?572].)
FN?9.?The?lieutenant?governor?acts?for?the?sovereign?in?her?absence.
FN?10.?The?majority?conclude?that?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?decided?that?trial?by?judge?is?constitutionally?sufficient?when?a?person?found?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity?seeks?outpatient?status.?(Jones?v.?United?States?(1983)?463?U.S.?354?[77?L.Ed.2d?694,?103?S.Ct.?3043]?(hereafter?Jones).)?I?believe?Jones?is?distinguishable.
Jones?held?that?a?patient?found?not?guilty?by?reason?of?insanity?was?not?constitutionally?entitled,?on?equal?protection?grounds?vis-a-vis?civilly?committed?persons,?to?a?jury?at?a?hearing?following?50?days?of?confinement.?(463?U.S.?at?p.?362,?fn.?10?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?704].)?But?Jones?does?not?weaken?Franklin.?The?50-day?hearing?in?Jones?served?only?to?certify?the?patient’s?eligibility?for?eventual?release?(see?id.?at?p.?357,?fn.?3?[77?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?701]),?and?may?be?viewed?as?a?prophylactic?check?on?the?jury’s?then-recent?finding?that?the?patient?was?insane?at?the?time?of?the?offense.?The?lower?court?in?the?Jones?litigation?viewed?the?hearing?as?part?of?the?commitment?itself?rather?than?a?postcommitment?procedure,?even?though?actual?physical?confinement?would?precede?the?hearing.?(Jones?v.?United?States?(D.C.?1981)?432?A.2d?364,?373,?fn.?19.)?The?federal?high?court?stated?that?it?did?not?decide?whether?the?release?procedures?were?constitutional.?(463?U.S.?at?p.?363,?fn.?11?[77?L.ed.2d?at?p.?704].)?Thus,?even?if?we?agreed?that?the?federal?standard?should?be?our?own,?in?my?view?Jones?does?not?support?the?proposition?that?Tilbury?is?not?constitutionally?entitled?to?a?jury?trial?on?the?question?of?his?eligibility?for?the?supervised?outpatient?regime.