Legal Opinion

People v. Burroughs

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 16, 2005No. B178524PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*1404Opinion

COFFEE, J. —

A recommitment under the mentally disordered offender (MDO) law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the patient has a severe mental disorder; (2) the disorder “is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment”; and (3) by reason of that disorder, the patient represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (Pen. Code, § 2970.)1 The Legislature has provided that a patient “ ‘cannot be kept in remission without treatment’ if during the year prior to the question being before the Board of Prison Terms or a trial court, he or she has…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. County Court of Ulster Cty. v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. In Re QawiCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  3. People v. Howard N.California Supreme Court · 2005
  4. People v. FrancisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. People v. BeesonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. People v. NelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  2. People v. HernandezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. People v. FisherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  4. (HC)Caridad v. BlackDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
  5. People v. BurroughsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API