LPS conservatees are similarly situated to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity for purposes of the right against compelled testimony.
Eric was diagnosed with schizophrenia, unable or unwilling to accept treatment voluntarily, and unable to meet his needs for food and clothing without support. Eric was compelled to testify over his objection at the trial on the public guardian’s LPS conservatorship petition. The public guardian called two other witnesses, a psychiatrist who had evaluated Eric, and a therapist that served as Eric’s case manager, both of whom testified that Eric was unable to care for himself or manage his own financial resources. After a jury trial, Eric was found to be gravely disabled, and placed under an LPS conservatorship. Eric challenged the order on appeal, and the appellate court held that LPS conservatees are similarly situated to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGIs) for the purpose of the right against compelled testimony, but that the trial court’s error was harmless.
The California Supreme Court affirmed. LPS conservatees are similarly situated to NGIs, who are not compelled to testify against themselves, so equal protection principles require the government to justify its disparate treatment of LPS conservatees. Both groups risk the potential loss of liberty by being subject to physical confinement and the loss of many personal rights (the rights to drive, vote, enter contracts, and make decisions about treatment). Both also share the goal of treatment, not punishment. The fact that LPS conservatees can be committed involuntarily for an indefinite period of time through the filing of successive petitions, resulting in deprived civil liberties, makes them similarly situated to NGIs. Nonetheless, no one challenged the appellate court’s conclusion that the trial court’s error in compelling Eric’s testimony was harmless because two other witnesses familiar with Eric provided testimony sufficient for the court to find that Eric was unable to care for himself due to mental illness. Thus, because the error was harmless, the question of whether the government can justify its differential treatment of LPS conservatees with regard to the testimonial privilege—as well as the question of what level of scrutiny applies—must await a decision in another case.
Case Details:
Source: California Lawyers Association – Conservatorship of Eric B.
Full Opinion: California Supreme Court Opinion PDF
Conservatorship of Eric B.: What California Families Need to Know About Testifying Rights in LPS Conservatorship Cases
If you’re a California resident navigating the conservatorship process for a loved one with mental illness, you may be wondering: Can someone be forced to testify against themselves in an LPS conservatorship hearing? A landmark 2022 California Supreme Court case provides critical guidance on this question—and what it means for protecting your family member’s rights.
Who This Information Is For
This article is essential reading if you are:
The Case: Conservatorship of Eric B.
In April 2022, the California Supreme Court decided a case that clarified important rights for people facing LPS (Lanterman-Petris-Short Act) conservatorship. The case involved Eric, a man diagnosed with schizophrenia who was unable or unwilling to accept treatment and could not meet his basic needs for food and clothing without support.
During Eric’s conservatorship trial, he was compelled to testify over his objection. The public guardian also called two other witnesses—a psychiatrist and a therapist—who both testified that Eric could not care for himself or manage his finances. A jury found Eric gravely disabled and placed him under an LPS conservatorship.
The Legal Question: Can LPS Conservatees Be Forced to Testify?
Eric challenged the conservatorship order, arguing that forcing him to testify violated his rights. The key legal issue was whether LPS conservatees should have the same protection against compelled testimony as persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGIs).
What the California Supreme Court Decided
The Court ruled that LPS conservatees and NGIs are similarly situated when it comes to testifying rights. Here’s why this matters:
Because of these similarities, the Court held that equal protection principles require the government to justify treating LPS conservatees differently than NGIs regarding the right against compelled testimony.
The Practical Impact: What This Means for Your Family
While the Court established this important principle, it also found that the error in Eric’s case was “harmless” because two other witnesses provided sufficient testimony to support the conservatorship finding. This meant the Court didn’t need to decide what level of scrutiny applies or whether the government can justify the different treatment.
Key Takeaways for California Families:
Real-World Application: Questions This Case Answers
If you’re considering an LPS conservatorship for a family member, this case helps answer:
Case Details
Additional Resources
Read the full case summary from the California Lawyers Association
View the complete California Supreme Court opinion (PDF)
How California Probate and Trust Can Help
Conservatorship proceedings are complex, emotionally challenging, and require careful navigation of California law to protect both your loved one’s rights and their wellbeing. At California Probate and Trust, PC, our experienced attorneys understand the anxiety California families face when dealing with mental health conservatorships.
We provide:
Whether you’re just beginning to consider conservatorship or are already in the middle of proceedings, our Sacramento-based team has helped thousands of California families protect their loved ones.
Schedule your free consultation today by calling (866) 674-1130 or visiting cpt.law.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Conservatorship law is complex and fact-specific. For guidance on your particular situation, please consult with a qualified California attorney.