People v. Taylor CA3

Filed 12/7/23 P. v. Taylor CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096640

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF160001937) v.

JOHN LAWRENCE TAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

After pleading not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) to the charge of resisting an executive officer, defendant John Lawrence Taylor was committed to a state hospital for a six-year term. (Pen. Code, § 69.)1 The People petitioned to extend the term for two years, alleging that by reason of mental disease, defect, or disorder defendant presented a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (§ 1026.5, subd. (b)(1).) The officer

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

involved testified about the underlying offense at the trial on the petition. The jury found the allegations of the petition true and the trial court extended defendant’s commitment for two years. Defendant contends evidence of the underlying offense was irrelevant and should not have been admitted. We disagree. Relevant evidence includes defendant’s violent threats charged in the underlying offense as an indication of future violent tendencies. More importantly, the underlying offense is relevant because defendant continued to exhibit the same conduct during commitment, indicating that he continued to experience the same mental illness. We find no abuse of discretion and will affirm the order extending commitment. I. BACKGROUND In January 2018, defendant pled not guilty by reason of insanity to obstructing and resisting an executive officer by threats. Defendant also admitted a prior strike. (§ 1170.12.) Other pending charges against defendant were dismissed. Defendant agreed to commitment to the Department of State Hospitals for a term of six years. Defendant acknowledged the possibility of extension of his commitment beyond six years and potentially for life. The trial court found defendant guilty and insane at the time of the offense and committed defendant for the maximum term of six years. In February 2022, the People filed a petition to extend defendant’s commitment. Defendant requested a jury trial. The People and defendant moved in limine to admit or exclude, respectively, testimony regarding the underlying offense. At the hearing on the motions in limine, the trial court stated that its tentative ruling was to grant the People’s motion and allow evidence regarding defendant’s underlying offense. At the commencement of trial, the trial court adopted its tentative ruling.