California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Criminal Law and Procedure
 

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
Criminal Law Case Summaries

■ People v. Dean, No. E041513

I.  INTRODUCTION

            Defendant Jeffrey Dean appeals from a judgment and order committing him to the State Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator (SVP).[1]

            Defendant contends:  (1) the trial court erroneously permitted plaintiff’s experts to testify to inadmissible hearsay; (2) as implemented in Riverside County, the appointment of only one expert for defendant violated his due process rights; and (3) his recommitment is illegal in that the protocols relied upon by plaintiff’s experts had not been adopted as administrative regulations.  We affirm the judgment and order of recommitment.

II.  SUMMARY OF FACTS

            The present recommitment petition was filed on December 13, 2005.[2]  Attached to the petition were the reports of Drs. Harry Goldberg and Dawn Starr, both Department of Mental Health evaluators.  For purposes of the recommitment petition, the qualifying offenses were a 1982 forcible rape conviction and a 1983 sodomy conviction.  Following a probable cause hearing, a jury trial commenced in August 2006.  In support of the petition, the prosecutor called Drs. Goldberg and Starr.  In addition, plaintiff called defendant and submitted into evidence redacted versions of his Penal Code section 969b packet and portions of the probation reports dealing with both qualifying offenses.  Testifying for defendant were John Peterson, a psychiatric technician at Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), and Dr. Theodore Donaldson. 

            The jury returned a “true” finding on the recommitment petition.  To the extent relevant, the evidence and facts will be discussed infra.

III.  ANALYSIS

The purpose of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) “‘is to identify persons who have certain diagnosed mental disorders that make them likely to engage in acts of sexual violence and to confine [them] for treatment of “their disorders only as long as the disorders persist and not for any punitive purpose.”  [Citation.]’  [Citation.]”  (Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735.) 

At trial, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is an SVP.  (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6604;[3] Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1147.)  At the time relevant here, the SVPA defined an SVP as “a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against two or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.”  (Former § 6600, subd. (a), italics added; People v. Vasquez (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1225, 1231.) 

■ HELD:

Trial court judgment and order committing defendant to the State Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiff's experts to testify to inadmissible hearsay; and 2) the sexually violent predator law that provides the district attorney with a minimum of two expert witnesses and only provides defendant with one did not violate his due process rights.
People v. Dean -E041513A-5/22/09 CA4/2
People v. Dean -E041513A-5/22/09 CA4/2-PDF

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory       
Case Summaries Directory