The Superior Court of San Bernardino County v. Esparza

Cite as E085807
Filed February 5, 2026
Fourth District, Div. Two

By William Sias
County of Los Angeles, Office of County Counsel
https://wsias@counsel.lacounty.gov

Headnote: A determination of grave disability under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act does not support a trial court’s presumption that the person is incompetent to testify under Evidence Code section 701.

Summary: Alexander Esparza was charged with kidnapping for ransom, reward, or extortion under Penal Code section 209, subd. (a). The alleged victim was his fiancée L.S., whom he subpoenaed to testify in his defense at the preliminary hearing. At the time of the alleged events, L.S. was the subject of a temporary conservatorship established pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (the LPS Act). L.S. had been placed in a suitable facility in Redlands. L.S. allegedly went missing from the facility, and months later she was found when she and Esparza were returning to the United States from Mexico.

Esparza was arraigned on the pending criminal charges, and days later the probate court appointed the Public Guardian of San Bernardino County as conservator for L.S. under the LPS Act. L.S. had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Consequently, the probate court found that L.S. was gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder and is unable to provide for her own basic personal needs of food, clothing, and/or shelter. The probate court also found that L.S. lacked the capacity to make informed decisions about her medical treatment.

The Public Guardian challenged Esparza’s subpoena, arguing that L.S. was incompetent to testify within the meaning of Evidence Code section 701 because she had been found gravely disabled in the LPS proceedings. The trial court agreed and found that the issue of competency was not an issue to be relitigated under section 701.

The appellate court found that the issue of whether incompetence to testify can be presumed from a grave disability finding under the LPS Act was one of first impression. The appellate court noted that the LPS Act states that “[n]o person may be presumed to be incompetent because he or she has been evaluated or treated for mental disorder … regardless of whether such evaluation or treatment was voluntarily or involuntarily received.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, section 5331.) The appellate court also observed that other types of incompetence may not be presumed from a grave-disability finding. The appellate court reasoned that whether a witness’s mental health disorder renders them incapable of expressing themselves or understanding the duty to tell the truth must be determined by the trial court during voir dire. A prior finding regarding the person’s mental health did not provide a preexisting answer to grounds for disqualification of a witness under Evidence Code section 701.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E085807.PDF

Please note that the Court of Appeal will move this published opinion into its “archive” approximately 60 days following the opinion’s above filing date, at which time the above link will no longer be operative.