The State did not violate the Fifth Amendment rights of a mentally disordered offender by calling him to testify at a hearing to extend his commitment. A California man severely damaged his credibility through incoherent testimony before a jury who found that he had a severe mental disorder and was dangerous. The judge extended his post-sentence commitment for one more year.

On appeal, the committee argued that the extended commitment was punitive, deprived him of his liberty and he had an absolute right not to testify at the trial because the proceeding was a criminal prosecution. He argued that the state "evinces a keen interest in punishment . . . because it requires the prisoners to serve their entire criminal sentences before being committed or treated."

The Appeals Court disagreed, pointing to the express language under the statute which described the hearing as civil in nature [See WEST'S ANN. CAL. PENAL CODE § 2972] and the requirement that severely mentally disordered prisoners be provided with treatment while in prison. The appellant was not entitled to a criminal defendant's absolute right to refuse to testify.

The Court conceded that a witness always retains the right to refuse to answer any question in a hearing, civil or criminal, that would tend to incriminate him or her in criminal activity. However, the privilege dissolves when the witness refused to reveal physical or mental characteristics to a trier of fact in a proceeding where such characteristics are at issue.