WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge on Monday declined to authorize involuntary antipsychotic medication for an accused individual facing multiple felony cases, finding the record did not provide enough evidence to justify overriding the accused’s right to refuse treatment, while ordering placement with the California Department of State Hospitals.
The issue arose during a placement review for the accused, who has several active criminal matters in Yolo County Superior Court, including felony cases. The court considered a seven-page report authored by Victoria Davis of Harbor Medical Group before addressing the accused’s treatment and placement.
After reviewing the report, Judge Stephen L. Mock asked both sides whether they were prepared to submit the matter based on the information it contained. Both sides agreed.
However, the court noted that one issue remained unresolved in the report: whether the accused should be subject to involuntary antipsychotic medication.
The prosecution asked the court to order the medication, arguing the accused appeared to lack insight into the accused’s mental health condition and had been refusing antipsychotic medication that could potentially stabilize the accused.
“The People’s position is that the court should order involuntary medication at this time,” the prosecutor told the court, citing information contained in the medical report.
The defense opposed the request, arguing the information before the court was insufficient to support such a significant order.
Defense counsel noted the accused had been in custody for a considerable period without any previous request for involuntary medication. Counsel also argued the accused should have the opportunity for a formal hearing at which the psychiatrist recommending the treatment could be questioned.
“Simply having it be part of the competency recommendation doesn’t rise to the level needed to make such an extreme order,” defense counsel argued.
The defense further suggested the issue could be reconsidered after the accused was transferred to the California Department of State Hospitals. If doctors there later determined medication was necessary because the accused continued to refuse treatment or was unable to stabilize, the defense argued, a formal hearing could then be held.
Judge Mock ultimately agreed the record before the court was insufficient to order involuntary medication.
“I have insufficient information to order involuntary medication at this point,” Mock said.
Although the judge denied the prosecution’s request, the court followed the report’s recommendation that the accused be referred to the California Department of State Hospitals for placement.
The court then discussed how frequently the accused’s status should be reviewed while awaiting and receiving treatment.
Defense counsel requested two separate reviews: a shorter placement review to ensure the accused had been transferred to the state hospital system and a longer 90-day review of the accused’s status.
The prosecution also informed the court it had contacted probation regarding the accused’s custody credits. According to the prosecutor, the accused had accumulated 143 days of actual custody credit as of Monday.
The court scheduled a placement review for Aug. 24 and a 90-day review for Oct. 26.
There was some confusion while determining the date of the longer review. Judge Mock initially referred to September before counsel sought clarification. After recognizing the mistake, the court confirmed the 90-day review would take place in October.
Judge Mock then signed the proposed placement order and directed that it be distributed to the parties.
The accused was remanded to custody pending placement with the California Department of State Hospitals.
Court records show the accused has multiple active cases that were listed for placement review Monday. Among them are allegations of obstructing or resisting an executive officer, assault with a deadly weapon and an enhancement alleging the use of a deadly weapon.
Another felony matter includes two counts of vandalism.
Monday’s hearing did not determine the accused’s guilt or innocence on the underlying criminal charges. Instead, the proceeding focused on placement and the separate question of whether the court had sufficient information to authorize involuntary medication.
While the prosecution maintained medication could help stabilize the accused, the defense argued additional procedural safeguards were necessary before the court imposed treatment without the accused’s consent.
For now, the court left that question unresolved, allowing it to be reconsidered later if medical professionals at the California Department of State Hospitals determine involuntary medication is necessary.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
