California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: In Committee

SB 795 — Health.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law provides for the commitment of persons found mentally incompetent for criminal process. Existing law also provides that if the defendant consented to antipsychotic medication, as specified, but subsequently withdraws his or her consent, or, if involuntary antipsychotic medication was not ordered, and the treating psychiatrist determines that antipsychotic medication has become medically necessary and appropriate, the treating psychiatrist shall make efforts to obtain informed consent from the defendant for antipsychotic medication. Existing law provides that if informed consent is not obtained from the defendant, and the treating psychiatrist is of the opinion that the defendant lacks capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication, or that the defendant is a danger to others, as specified, the committing court shall be notified of this, including an assessment of the current mental status of the defendant and the opinion of the treating psychiatrist that involuntary antipsychotic medication has become medically necessary and appropriate. Existing law further provides that the court shall provide notice to the prosecuting attorney and to the attorney representing the defendant and shall set a hearing to determine whether involuntary antipsychotic medication should be ordered, as specified. This bill would provide that if informed consent is not obtained from the defendant, and the treating psychiatrist is of the opinion that the defendant lacks capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication, or that the defendant is a danger to others, as specified, then the treating psychiatrist shall file a petition with the committing court for issuance of an emergency order within 24 hours after determining that antipsychotic medication has become medically necessary and appropriate. The bill would require the court to provide notice to the prosecuting attorney and to the attorney representing the defendant, and to hold a preliminary hearing no later than the first court day commencing after a period of 48 hours after the determination that antipsychotic medication has become medically necessary and appropriate has been made to establish probable cause for grounds to administer antipsychotic medication. The bill would require the court to render its decision on the petition no later than the first court day following a period of 72 hours after the determination that antipsychotic medication has become medically necessary and appropriate was made. The bill would provide that if, as a result of the preliminary hearing, the court determines that probable cause continues to exist for the administration of antipsychotic medication, the court may issue an order authorizing the administration of that medication on an emergency basis after finding on the record, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant lacks capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication, or the defendant is a danger to others, as specified, and that no other appropriate means are available to mitigate the patient's situation. The bill would authorize antipsychotic medication to be provided pursuant to the emergency order for no more than 14 days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays pending a hearing, as specified, to be held not later than those same 14 days. (2) Existing law requires mentally disordered prisoners in the state prison to be admitted to a state hospital and requires the State Department of Mental Health to evaluate certain defendants committed to a state hospital. A patient determined to be a high security risk is required to be treated in the departments most secure facilities, as specified. This bill would, among other things, require a security and violence risk assessment to be performed, as specified, on every patient who has been committed to a state hospital pursuant to the Penal Code. The bill would require a patient who is determined by the security and violence risk assessment to have a high risk for aggression to be placed in a specified treatment unit within a state hospital, correctional facility, state prison psychiatric facility, or other secure facility. The department would be required to review and provide final approval, as well as recommendations for appropriate placement, for a completed security and violence risk assessment prior to the transfer of the patient to a treatment facility. The bill would require a patient who is determined to be a high escape risk patient to be treated at a state prison psychiatric facility, Atascadero State Hospital or Patton State Hospital, a correctional facility, or other secure facility as defined by the State Department of Mental Health. The bill would require, on a quarterly basis beginning January 1, 2012, the department to provide a prescribed report to the public safety committees of the Legislature on the level of aggression at the state hospitals.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Set, second hearing. Further hearing to be set.

  3. Set for hearing April 26.

  4. Set, first hearing. Further hearing to be set.

  5. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  6. Set for hearing April 12.

  7. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  8. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 21.

  9. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Blakeslee · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Blakeslee

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

public-safety healthcare
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 795 do?
(1) Existing law provides for the commitment of persons found mentally incompetent for criminal process. Existing law also provides that if the defendant consented to antipsychotic medication, as specified, but subsequently withdraws his or her consent, or, if involuntary antipsychotic medication was not ordered, and the treating psychiatrist determines that antipsychotic medication has become medically necessary and appropriate, the treating psychiatrist shall make efforts to obtain informed consent from the defendant for antipsychotic medication. Existing law provides that if informed consent is not obtained from the defendant, and the treating psychiatrist is of the opinion that the defendant lacks capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication, or that the defendant is a danger to others, as specified, the committing court shall be notified of this, including an assessment of the current mental status of the defendant and the opinion of the treating psychiatrist that involuntary antipsychotic medication has become medically necessary and appropriate. Existing law further provides that the court shall provide notice to the prosecuting attorney and to the attorney representing the defendant and shall set a hearing to determine whether involuntary antipsychotic medication should be ordered, as specified. This bill would provide that if informed consent is not obtained from the defendant, and the treating psychiatrist is of the opinion that the defendant lacks capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication, or that the defendant is a danger to others, as specified, then the treating psychiatrist shall file a petition with the committing court for issuance of an emergency order within 24 hours after determining that antipsychotic medication has become medically necessary and appropriate. The bill would require the court to provide notice to the prosecuting attorney and to the attorney representing the defendant, and to hold a preliminary hearing no later than the first court day commencing after a period of 48 hours after the determination that antipsychotic medication has become medically necessary and appropriate has been made to establish probable cause for grounds to administer antipsychotic medication. The bill would require the court to render its decision on the petition no later than the first court day following a period of 72 hours after the determination that antipsychotic medication has become medically necessary and appropriate was made. The bill would provide that if, as a result of the preliminary hearing, the court determines that probable cause continues to exist for the administration of antipsychotic medication, the court may issue an order authorizing the administration of that medication on an emergency basis after finding on the record, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant lacks capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication, or the defendant is a danger to others, as specified, and that no other appropriate means are available to mitigate the patient's situation. The bill would authorize antipsychotic medication to be provided pursuant to the emergency order for no more than 14 days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays pending a hearing, as specified, to be held not later than those same 14 days. (2) Existing law requires mentally disordered prisoners in the state prison to be admitted to a state hospital and requires the State Department of Mental Health to evaluate certain defendants committed to a state hospital. A patient determined to be a high security risk is required to be treated in the departments most secure facilities, as specified. This bill would, among other things, require a security and violence risk assessment to be performed, as specified, on every patient who has been committed to a state hospital pursuant to the Penal Code. The bill would require a patient who is determined by the security and violence risk assessment to have a high risk for aggression to be placed in a specified treatment unit within a state hospital, correctional facility, state prison psychiatric facility, or other secure facility. The department would be required to review and provide final approval, as well as recommendations for appropriate placement, for a completed security and violence risk assessment prior to the transfer of the patient to a treatment facility. The bill would require a patient who is determined to be a high escape risk patient to be treated at a state prison psychiatric facility, Atascadero State Hospital or Patton State Hospital, a correctional facility, or other secure facility as defined by the State Department of Mental Health. The bill would require, on a quarterly basis beginning January 1, 2012, the department to provide a prescribed report to the public safety committees of the Legislature on the level of aggression at the state hospitals.
Who sponsors SB 795?
SB 795 is sponsored by Blakeslee.
What is the current status of SB 795?
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 795?
Track SB 795 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 795

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 795

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →