A Hearing Is Not a Trial

K.R. v. Superior Court, No. A164821 (D1d3 Jun. 22, 2022)

This is a conservatorship case brought under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. Because a conservatorship can entail significant restrictions on one’s personal freedome, many of features of criminal litigation—appointed counsel, the right to jury trial, a heightened burden of proof—apply by statute in LPS cases, even if they are technically civil.

So, a potential conservatee is required to be personally advised that she has the right to a court or jury trial. That right can be demanded before “the hearing,” in which case the hearing is waived and the case goes straight to trial. Or the court will hold a hearing, and then the conservatee can demand a trial within five days after it occurrs. None of the statutes explain what a hearing or a trial looks like, procedurally.

Here the court held a hearing, took testimony from three witnesses, and then determined it would put the Defendant into a conservatorship. Defendant then demanded a jury trial. But the court denied it, finding that the proceeding that had already occurred was, effectively, a bench trial, because live testimony was taken. And Defendant waived jury by taking part in it. Defendant took a writ. 

Looking to the structure of the statute, the Court of Appeal finds that the trial court erred. The first hearing is not a trial. The hearing is set automatically. But no trial—bench or jury—can occur unless demanded by the defendant. So the hearing was a hearing and not a trial, even though the practical differences between a hearing with live witnesses and a court trial are somewhat elusive.

Writ granted.