In People v. Sword, (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 614, the appellate court indicated that the defendant has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, at an outpatient status hearing. (Id. at p. 621.) In that case, the defendant, who had been committed to a state hospital, sought release on outpatient status pursuant to section 1026.2. The court acknowledged that though section 1026.2 specified that the defendant had the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence at a restoration of sanity hearing, it did not specify the burden of proof at an outpatient status hearing. (Ibid.) The Sword court observed that section 1026.2, subdivision (e) sets forth a two-step process for processing an application of release on the ground that the defendant has been restored to sanity: "'first, a determination of whether the applicant should be placed in a local program, and later, after a year in such a program, a determination of whether the applicant's sanity has been restored.' ." (Id. at p. 620.) The court ultimately determined that because the "outpatient release procedure was an integral part of the restoration of sanity procedure stated in section 1026.2, . . . placement of the burden of proof on defendant" at the outpatient status hearing was proper. (Id. at p. 621.) The court concluded that there was no "due process problem with the California procedure." (Ibid.) The court explained, "there is a presumption of continued insanity: '. . . it is reasonable to presume under such circumstances that defendant's insanity, established by a preponderance of evidence, has continued to the date of trial.' . The term 'date of trial' refers to the trial on present sanity, i.e., the release hearing." (Ibid.) As such, the Sword court found that there was no due process violation on placing the burden on the defendant in an outpatient status hearing. (Ibid.)