People v. T.B.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed an order authorizing electroconvulsive therapy for an incarcerated defendant who lacked capacity to provide informed consent. The court held that the Penal Code requirement to find no less onerous alternatives refers to alternative medical treatments, not to procedural alternatives involving surrogate consent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5326.7.

Holdings

1. The appeal should not be dismissed as moot because the challenged issue is capable of repetition and likely to evade appellate review due to the limited duration of ECT authorization orders.
2. The phrase 'no less onerous alternatives to such organic therapy' refers to available medical alternatives to the proposed organic therapy, such as psychotherapy, medications, or nonorganic behavior-modification programs; it does not require pursuing an alternative procedural method for obtaining consent from a surrogate decisionmaker.
3. The superior court's order authorizing ECT was affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the phrase 'no less onerous alternatives' in Penal Code section 2679, subdivision (b), requires the warden to pursue a surrogate decisionmaker's informed consent before seeking judicial authorization for nonconsensual ECT.
2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the six-month ECT authorization expired during the appeal.

Disposition

affirmed