At MDO Extended Commitment Hearings, Defendants May Not Relitigate The Issue Of Their Mental State At The Time Of The Underlying Offense

The Board of Prison Terms (BPT) determined that appellant suffered from a severe mental disorder and, that as a condition of his parole, he be treated by the Department of Mental Health as a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO). Appellant waived his right to a hearing to contest that determination and was therefore commmitted as an MDO for one year. When the BPT petitioned to extend his MDO commitment for another year, appellant sought to contest the issue of his mental state at the time of the commission of the underlying offense.

Division Six of California's Second District Court of Appeal held that once the initial commitment expired, appellant was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of his mental state at the time of the underlying offense. At the extension hearing, appellant could only contest the MDO criteria addressed to the current state of his mental disorder. According to the Court of Appeal, even though issues relating to his mental state at the time of the underlying offense were not actually "litigated" because appellant did not petition for a hearing during his initial commitment, preclusive effect is also given to issues that could have been litigated in a prior proceeding.

The unanimous opinion was authored by Justice Steven Z. Perren.

People v. Merfield, no. B190093 (Cal.Ct.App. (2nd Dist., Div. 6) filed 2/21/07)