SUPREME COURT
OF
CALIFORNIA

Quesada (Michelle) v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., S216305
Issue: Herb Thyme Farms was a certified Organic herb distributor and the USDA granted their certification like all others. The standards for organic use and labeling are in the “Organic Food Protection Act” (OFPA). The Appellant is making the claim that Herb Thyme labeled products USDA organic but in fact did not meet OFPA regulation for being organic. Herb Thyme is stating that they acted lawfully under USDA supervision and permission.
Arguments: The Appellant is claiming products were purposely mislabeled; stating Herb Thyme took organic herbs and intermingled them with traditionally produced product. According to OFPA, in order for a product to be labeled …show more content…
Therefore, the hearsay of and expert witness must be accompanied with the proof of said hearsay to achieve an MDO conviction. The attorney for the DA argues hearsay has been the method that the state has used for twenty years, and it works…so why change it.
Ruling: The Supreme Court Justices ruled the proof to classify an individual MDO cannot be Hearsay. In order for the court to make the decision as to whether or not an individual should be labeled MDO due to the nature of the forcible or violent charge. The facts and eyewitness accounts used in the original charge will need to be brought forth during an MDO hearing. Once the court has seen the facts and listened to eyewitness accounts, they can then use the opinion of an expert in mental illness to make the best decision for treatment of the individual and safety of the public.
My Thoughts: The Mentally Disordered Offender Act was implemented to protect society from severely disturbed persons once released from jail. It seems the method the state has been using to classify someone MDO is not very thorough. Peoples rights are being taken away, some are taken for life because of faulty