{"id":263,"date":"2026-02-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=263"},"modified":"2026-02-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-05T12:00:00","slug":"esparza-v-superior-court-e085807-lps-witness-competency-evidence-code-701","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=263","title":{"rendered":"Esparza v. Superior Court \u2014 LPS Grave-Disability Finding Is Not Equivalent to Incompetence to Testify Under Evidence Code Section 701"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Esparza v. Superior Court (People, Real Party in Interest)<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division Two<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
E085807<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Witness Competency, Evidence Code section 701, LPS Conservatorship, Preliminary Hearing, Subpoena<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The People charged Alexander Esparza with kidnapping his fianc\u00e9e, L.S., for ransom, reward, or extortion. At the time of the alleged offense, L.S. was on a temporary LPS conservatorship and placed in a residential facility; she allegedly went missing from the facility and was found months later attempting to return from Mexico with Esparza. Days after Esparza’s arraignment, a probate court issued a final order appointing the San Bernardino County Public Guardian as L.S.’s LPS conservator and finding her gravely disabled and unable to make rational medical decisions; the conservatorship investigator’s report had identified schizophrenia.<\/p>\n

Esparza subpoenaed L.S. to testify in his defense at the preliminary hearing. The Public Guardian moved to quash on the ground that L.S.’s grave-disability finding established her incompetence to testify under Evidence Code section 701. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. Esparza filed a writ petition.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal granted the writ. As a matter of statutory construction, the LPS Act’s grave-disability finding and Evidence Code section 701’s witness-competency standard are distinct. Grave disability under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5008 asks whether the person can provide for basic personal needs. Witness incompetence under Evidence Code section 701 asks whether the person is incapable of expressing himself or herself in a way that can be understood, or is incapable of understanding the duty to tell the truth.<\/p>\n

A person can be gravely disabled and yet competent to testify; many people under LPS conservatorships can testify lucidly about events they witnessed. The trial court’s reliance on the probate court’s order to short-circuit the section 701 inquiry was legal error. The trial court must conduct an actual section 701 competency evaluation \u2014 typically by examining the proposed witness or considering targeted evidence about her capacity to understand and communicate.<\/p>\n

The court directed the trial court to vacate the order granting the motion to quash and to reconsider competency under the proper standard.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n