Reported / Citable
Background
Santa Barbara County’s Public Guardian sought a conservatorship for K.L. under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, California’s framework for involuntary treatment and supervision of people found gravely disabled because of a mental-health or severe substance-use disorder. An LPS conservatorship can authorize confinement and restrict important rights, including driving, contracting, possessing firearms, and making medical decisions.
K.L. received a written citation mentioning the right to a jury trial. At a remote pretrial hearing, however, her lawyer said only that K.L. objected and wanted a prompt court trial by Zoom. Neither counsel nor the judge explained the jury right, described the difference between a judge and jury trial, or obtained K.L.’s personal waiver. The court then conducted a bench trial, found K.L. gravely disabled beyond a reasonable doubt, and appointed the Public Guardian as conservator for one year with placement in a locked psychiatric facility.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed the conservatorship order. A proposed LPS conservatee has a statutory right to a unanimous jury determination of grave disability, and the trial court must advise the person of that right. A waiver must be knowing and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances unless substantial evidence shows the person lacks capacity to decide.
Personal service of a standard written citation was not enough on this record. Although counsel may communicate a client’s waiver, counsel never said that she had discussed the jury right with K.L., and requesting a court trial did not itself show that K.L. understood the choice she was making. The judge likewise gave no oral advisement or explanation. Nothing else in the record demonstrated familiarity with jury procedure or an informed decision to give it up.
The court declined to impose an automatic-reversal rule for every omitted advisement. A reviewing court may uphold a waiver if the complete record affirmatively demonstrates informed consent. Here, however, there was no such evidence and the county did not argue that K.L. lacked capacity to waive a jury. The error was therefore prejudicial, and the court reversed without ordering a retrospective capacity determination.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts must advise proposed LPS conservatees that they have a right to a jury trial on grave disability.
- A served form that lists the jury right does not, by itself, establish a knowing and intelligent waiver.
- Counsel can communicate a waiver, but the record should show that counsel explained the right and that the client chose a judge trial with understanding.
- A request for a fast bench trial, standing alone, is not a substitute for an informed waiver.
- Failure to give the advisement is not automatically reversible in every case; the total record controls.
Why It Matters
LPS proceedings are civil, but the liberty interests resemble those in criminal cases. This decision gives judges, county counsel, public defenders, and appointed counsel a straightforward record-making requirement: explain the jury right and obtain a clear response before proceeding to a bench trial.
For hospitals, public guardians, and families, a defective waiver can undo a completed conservatorship even when evidence of grave disability is strong. A short on-the-record advisement can reduce delay, avoid a retrial, and protect the legitimacy of decisions that may place a person in a locked facility and remove basic civil rights.