When Can Judge Order Medicine be Given by Force?

In July 2021, in San Diego County, Jennifer Garcia sent threatening text messages to a Child Welfare Services worker.  Ms. Garcia threatened to abduct the worker, “cement” her, and toss her into a river for abducting and abusing Ms. Garcia’s children.

She was thereafter arrested and charged in San Diego Superior Court with one count of making a threat to a public officer, Penal Code § 71, and two counts of disobeying a court order, Penal Code § 273.6.

In August 2021, Ms. Garcia brought a large kitchen knife into juvenile court.  Video surveillance showed she had the weapon in her waistband when she walked into the courthouse restroom.  The knife was later recovered from the restroom.

In a separate criminal case, the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office charged Ms. Garcia with possessing a weapon in a courthouse, Penal Code § 171b(a).

In September 2021, Ms. Garcia pled guilty to violating Penal Code 71 in the threatening case and to violating Penal Code § 171b(a) in the weapons possession case.  The remaining counts were dismissed.  The judge sentenced her to two years of formal probation with various terms and conditions.

In June 2022, Ms. Garcia “stabbed another woman several times in the back, head and neck.”  The wounds required staples and sutures to close the wound.  The San Diego District Attorney’s Office then charged her with attempted murder (Penal Code §§ 664, 187(a)) and assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code § 245(a)(1)).  The complaint further alleged that Ms. Garcia personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon under Penal Code § 12022(b)(1) and personally inflicted great bodily injury under Penal Code § 12022.7(a).

At a preliminary hearing on this case, her counsel declared a doubt under Penal Code § 1368 as to her mental competence and the judge suspended proceedings for a determination of her mental competence.

A psychologist diagnosed her with unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder.  The doctor recommended treatment with antipsychotic medication and stated that without such medication, it was likely that serious harm will result to her physical and mental health.  The report further stated that she had been prescribed various medical medications and that Ms. Garcia had refused to take any medication.  A psychiatrist also evaluated her and stated that Ms. Garcia lacked the capacity to make decisions regarding her mental health.

Based on these reports, the judge found Ms. Garcia incompetent to stand trial and that she lacked the capacity to make decisions regarding the medications and that she presented a danger to society.  

The judge then authorized the state hospital to involuntarily administer antipsychotic mediation to Ms. Garcia.

Ms. Garcia then appealed this order at the Fourth Appellate District Court in San Diego, which affirmed the trial court.

The Fourth District explained that a court’s order authorizing a state hospital to administer antipsychotic medication involuntarily to a defendant will be upheld on appeal so long as it is supported by substantial evidence.  People v. Leonard (2016) 247 Cal. App. 4th 381, 397.  An appellate court’s “review of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding requiring clear and convincing proof must account for the level of confidence this standard demands.”  Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 989, 995.  Accordingly, “the question before [us] is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.”  Id. at 995-996.

The appellate court further explained that a trial court is required to permit involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication if it finds one of three sets of conditions to be true (Penal Code § 1370(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) – (III) & (ii)).  These conditions are that (1) the defendant lacks capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication, (2) the defendant’s mental disorder requires medical treatment with antipsychotic medication; and (3) if the defendant’s mental disorder is not treated with antipsychotic medication, it is probable that serious hare to the physical or mental health of the defendant will result.” Penal Code § 1370(a)(2)(B)(i)(I).

Because the psychiatrist and the psychologist evaluated Garcia and found such conditions existed, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.