Page 1
Order for Forced Medication Can’t Be Based on Recommendation of Psychologist—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Third District Court of Appeal has declared that a trial judge who bowed to a determination by a psychologist that a defendant lacked the capacity to stand trial on a robbery charge, ordering commitment of the man to a mental facility, erred in later authorizing the forced administration of antipsychotic medication to the patient inasmuch as it was called for only by the psychologist, not by a psychiatrist.
Justice Peter A. Krause wrote the opinion, filed Wednesday and not certified for publication. He pointed to Penal Code §1369(a)(2) which says:
“If an examining psychologist is of the opinion that antipsychotic medication may be medically appropriate for the defendant and that the defendant should be evaluated by a psychiatrist to determine if antipsychotic medication is medically appropriate, the psychologist shall inform the court of this opinion and his or her recommendation as to whether a psychiatrist should examine the defendant.”
Krause pointed out:
“[U]nder section 1369, a psychologist can recommend that medication may be appropriate, but only a psychiatrist can determine that medication is medically appropriate. Consequently, a psychologist must recommend to the court whether a psychiatrist should examine the defendant to conclusively determine medical appropriateness, and then the psychiatrist informs the court of his or her opinion.”
He noted that the psychologist, Janice Nakagawa, did not purport to prescribe the medication, and said that the court’s order envisioned that a psychiatrist would make the ultimate call as to whether antipsychotics would be administered. Nonetheless, Krause declared, that this “is not the process prescribed by the statute.”
Krause wrote:
“The trial court here received no evidence or reporting from a psychiatrist as to the necessity of medication before “ordering that involuntary antipsychotic medication is necessary” and may be administered by the State Hospital. Putting aside whether Dr. Nakagawa’s report provided evidence of other elements required under the first condition, the court’s order lacked substantial evidence because there was necessarily no valid evidence that medication was necessary or medically appropriate; that opinion could only be furnished by a psychiatrist.”
The case is People v. Deal, C093777.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company