Court Opinion

ID: 9724300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:52:22.046802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:59.116565
License: Public Domain

AISO, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
The portion of Welfare and Institutions Code section 3108 pertinent to this case reads: “If the person so committed ... is dissatisfied with the order of commitment, he may within 10 days after the making of such order, file a written demand that the question of his addiction or imminent danger of addiction be tried by a jury in the superior court of the county in which he was committed. Thereupon, the court shall cause a jury to- be summoned and to be in attendance at a date stated, not less than 4 days nor more than 30 days from the date of the demand for a jury trial.” This- is a statutory right which comes into play only when the person ordered committed chooses to request it. (People v. Murphy (1969) 70 Cal.2d 109, 117, 119 [74 Cal.Rptr. 65, 448 P.2d 945].) It is, therefore, something in the nature of a lateral appeal to a new trier of fact. It is not an, initial judicial determination of facts. The second sentence from section, 3108 quoted above has been held to mean, that the jury trial must be held within 30 days (People v. Murphy, supra, 70 Cal.2d 109, 118, fn. 7), subject (I would add) to exception where good legal cause is shown. I would construe this time limitation ,to be applicable to- the person requesting the jury trial as well as to the People. Where the trial is not held within the 30-day period because the person ordered committed runs away *822and becomes “a fugitive,” I would rule that he forfeits his right to further pursue this statutory remedy.
However, I think that the person who demands the jury should be warned of this possible forfeiture; the warning in the instant case having failed to cover this construction of section 3108, I join in the judgment reversing the trial court’s order which reinstated and ordered into execution the original order of commitment.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 31, 1972. Burke, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.