Conservatorship of Eric B.

Summary

The California Supreme Court held that proposed conservatees under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act are similarly situated to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) for purposes of the statutory right against compelled testimony, thereby triggering equal protection scrutiny. However, because the error in compelling the conservatee’s testimony was harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of grave disability, the court affirmed the judgment without deciding the ultimate equal protection question or the appropriate level of scrutiny. The case does not extend the constitutional right against self-incrimination to LPS proceedings but requires the government to justify disparate treatment of these groups in future cases.

Holdings

1. LPS conservatees and NGI's are sufficiently similar for equal protection purposes regarding the right against compelled testimony, requiring the government to justify disparate treatment. However, because any error was harmless, the court need not decide the justification prong.

Questions Presented

1. Whether equal protection requires that the statutory right against compelled testimony in NGI extension proceedings (Pen. Code § 1026.5(b)(7)) also applies to LPS conservatorship proceedings.

Disposition

affirmed