People v. Kipp

California Court of Appeal Dec 2, 1986 No. G003171Published

Before: Crosby

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. It is improper to instruct a jury that a finding of sanity in a commitment extension proceeding will result in the defendant's release from all court supervision and mandatory treatment. Such an instruction improperly deflects the jury's focus from the defendant's mental condition to the consequences of the verdict.

Issues

Whether a trial court errs by instructing a jury on the post-verdict consequences of finding an inmate sane in a commitment extension proceeding.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There can be no purpose to advising a jury of the consequences of its decision under the present circumstances, except to improperly deflect its attention from the issue of the defendant’s current mental condition”

“It should not have been given here and should not be given in the future.”

Opinion

CROSBY, Acting P. J.

In a trial to determine whether an inmate of a state hospital has regained his sanity, is it proper to advise the jury a finding that he no longer represents a substantial danger to others will result in his being freed from court supervision and any requirement of mandatory treatment in the future?

No.

John Kipp was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the arson of his parents’ home, and the maximum term of hospitalization was fixed at six years. After two years he was released to outpatient status, but he was returned to the hospital again several months later.

Approximately seven months before his commitment was scheduled to terminate, the district attorney petitioned to extend the commitment (Pen. Code, § 1026.5, subd. (b)). The matter was tried to a jury, and a number of professionals involved in his treatment testified to Kipp’s continuing

[750]

mental problems. In addition, two court-appointed psychologists concluded he posed a substantial danger to others if released from the hospital.

Kipp testified as the sole witness for the defense. He acknowledged suffering a nervous breakdown before the 1979 arson incident. He was currently on medication to control his emotions and to help him sleep. He agreed with the psychologist who testified to the hostility he continued to feel towards his mother. He admitted a drug and alcohol abuse problem and stated he was involved in Patton State Hospital’s Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous programs. He desired to be released from the hospital and to contact a local mental health agency to secure a board and care residency where he could continue group therapy and receive job training. Demons, he said, used to ridicule him and encourage him to commit criminal offenses, but he had not heard from them for several months before trial.

The jury found Kipp was still suffering from a mental disease and posed a substantial danger to others. Accordingly, his commitment was extended (Pen. Code, § 1026.5, subd. (b)(6)).

People v. Kipp

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief