Court Opinion

ID: 9731984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:03:32.062058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:22.284985
License: Public Domain

HASTINGS, J., Concurring.
I concur in the result, but for a different reason than stated by the majority. The record does not support the acting medical director’s conclusion that defendant was sane enough to stand trial. The summary of the staff finding (quoted in the majority opinion) said, “he [defendant] will not be able to offer much or cooperate meaningfully with counsel in his own defense.” One test of “sanity” that must be met before a defendant can stand trial, is that he is able to assist his attorney in conducting his defense. (People v. Pennington, 66 Cal.2d 508 [58 Cal.Rptr. 374, 426 P.2d 942].) Other bits and pieces from the record on the *860medication required by the defendant and footnoted in the majority opinion lend, further support to the conclusion of the staff report. I would reverse the decision of the trial court for that reason.
A petition for a rehearing was denied October 11, 1974, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 13, 1974. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.