California Legal Brief

The Rule of Esparza v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County is that incompetence to testify under Evidence Code section 701 may not be presumed from a prior grave disability finding under the LPS Act, under circumstances where a conservatorship has been established based on inability to provide for basic personal needs.

Appeal from order granting motion to quash subpoena in Superior Court, San Bernardino County.

Petitioner was Alexander Esparza — the defendant charged with kidnapping for ransom who sought to subpoena his fiancée as a defense witness at the preliminary hearing.

Respondent was The Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Real Party in Interest was The People and San Bernardino County Public Guardian — the conservator seeking to prevent the alleged victim from testifying due to her alleged incompetence.

The suit sounded in criminal law/evidence law regarding witness competency. The Public Guardian moved to quash Esparza's subpoena of L.S. arguing she was incompetent to testify under Evidence Code section 701 because a probate court had found her "gravely disabled" under the LPS Act.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that Esparza was charged with kidnapping his fiancée L.S. for ransom in violation of Penal Code section 209(a). L.S. was under temporary LPS Act conservatorship with the Public Guardian and went missing from a Redlands facility, later found with Esparza when they were attempting to return from Mexico. The probate court subsequently found L.S. gravely disabled due to mental disorder and unable to provide for basic personal needs, and incapable of making rational medical treatment decisions.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted the Public Guardian's motion to quash the subpoena, ruling that the probate court's grave disability finding constituted a finding that L.S. was incompetent to testify and the competency issue had "already been determined" and did not need to be relitigated under Evidence Code section 701.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether incompetence to testify under Evidence Code section 701 can be presumed from a grave disability finding under the LPS Act.

The Appellate Court held that trial courts may not presume incompetence to testify under Evidence Code section 701 from a prior grave disability finding under the LPS Act, because the standards are legally distinct - grave disability concerns inability to provide for basic personal needs while testimonial competence concerns ability to express oneself understandably and understand the duty to tell the truth.

The case is inapplicable when the trial court conducts an actual competency hearing under Evidence Code section 701 rather than presuming incompetence from other findings, or when dealing with competency standards other than testimonial competence.

The case leaves open what specific procedures trial courts should follow when conducting competency hearings for LPS Act conservatees, and whether other types of mental health adjudications might be relevant (though not dispositive) to testimonial competency determinations.