P. v. Blue



















Filed 8/13/10 P. v. Blue CA1/5









NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS







California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.







IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



FIRST APPELLATE
DISTRICT



DIVISION FIVE






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AISHA ANN BLUE, Defendant and Appellant.

A126449 ( >Napa > County >Super. > >Ct. > Nos. CR103027, CR118626)

Defendant
Aisha Ann Blue (appellant) appeals a trial court order extending her commitment
as a mentally disordered offender
(MDO) for another year. (Pen. Code,
§ 2972, subd. (c).)[1] She contends the trial court erroneously
instructed the jury regarding her burden of proof. The People concede the court's instruction
was erroneous, but assert the error was invited by defense counsel and, alternatively, was
harmless. We conclude the instructional
error was harmless and affirm.

BACKGROUND

On
December 6, 2005, appellant
was committed to Patton State Hospital (PSH) as an MDO. On April 14, 2009, the Napa County
District Attorney filed an extended commitment petition (§§ 2962, 2970)
alleging that appellant has a severe mental disorder that is not in remission
and cannot be kept in remission without continued treatment, and represents a
substantial danger of harm to others due to this mental disorder. Her then-current commitment was due to expire
on November 11, 2009.

Psychiatrist
Rahima Afghan treated appellant at PSH for various periods between 2007 and
August 2009. She opined that appellant
has a severe mental disorder;
specifically, schizophrenia undifferentiated type. Afghan said appellant has a history of
hearing voices, paranoid delusions, and assaultive behavior. Afghan also diagnosed appellant with
polysubstance dependence, antisocial personality disorder, and borderline
intellectual functioning. She originally
prescribed Risperdal, an antipsychotic, for appellant; while appellant was on
it, she was calm and not assaultive.
However, due to a side effect, Afghan took her off Risperdal and
prescribed Seroquel, a different antipsychotic.
Appellant continued being assaultive and very paranoid while taking
Seroquel and was not yet stable with her current dose.

Afghan
testified that appellant is unwilling to take her medication; appellant says
she does not need to take medication.
Afghan had to obtain a court order to involuntarily medicate her. In September 2009, appellant last refused
medication; she had to be put in restraints and involuntarily medicated. Afghan said appellant's mental illness is not
in remission because she continues to be paranoid, does not believe she has a
mental illness, and is assaultive even on medication. She opined that if appellant were released to
the community, she would not take her medication and would become more
dangerous. Afghan also opined that for
appellant's mental illness to be in remission she would need a higher level of
medication and more attendance in therapy groups. Afghan stated appellant does not now attend
most of her groups.

Clinical
psychologist Christopher Love has treated appellant at PSH since September
2007. He said she had participated in
group therapy about 20 percent of the time.
Love opined that appellant has a severe mental disorder, schizophrenia
undifferentiated type. She also has
borderline intellectual functioning, antisocial personality disorder, and a
history of substance abuse. Love also
opined that appellant's severe mental disorder is not in remission and cannot
be kept in remission. She exhibits
symptoms of profound paranoia and within the last year initiated approximately
10 acts of violence against PSH staff and/or peers. Multiple times in the last year she injured
staff severely. He also testified that
she has had â€