PRINT PAGE

svpa compendium

 

Year 2017
California Court of Appeal

In re Snyder (C082275, 6/9/2017)
12 Cal.App.5th 744
[7] State Department of Hospitals (SDH) improperly "undesignated" psychologist who performed SVP evaluation based on its internal quality assurance process, contrary to the mandates of Welfare and Institutions Code section 6601. A few months before his scheduled release from prison, Snyder, who had been convicted of sexual offenses, was referred by the Board of Parole Hearings to the SDH for an SVP evaluation. One of the two doctors designated to evaluate Snyder found he was not an SVP, but the report she drafted did not meet SDH's minimum quality standards. Concerned the report could not be correct in time, SDH "undesignated" the doctor, and selected a third doctor to complete the evaluation. The two designated doctors found Snyder was an SVP. Snyder's motion to dismiss the petition based on this procedure was denied. Snyder sought writ relief. Held: Writ granted. The Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) allows for the involuntary civil commitment of a person who has completed his prison term but who is found to be an SVP. Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq., sets forth the procedures for this process. After a person is screened and referred for evaluation, the SDH designates two psychologists or psychiatrists to perform the evaluation. If they both agree the person is an SVP, then SDH requests that an SVP petition be filed. If the doctors disagree, then SDH must arrange for further examination of the person by two independent professionals (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6601, subd. (e)). A petition for commitment is filed only if both professionals agree the person meets the standard of commitment. Here, SDH had a quality assurance process in place for SVP evaluations to make sure the evaluator properly considered all of the required steps in drafting the report and employed sound clinical reasoning. However, SDH's quality assurance process is not part of section 6601's standardized assessment protocol and the supervisor of a designated evaluator may not substitute his or her professional judgment for that of the designated evaluator.

The SDH's failure to comply with section 6601 does not require that the SVP petition be dismissed. "Inherent in the power to issue the writ of habeas corpus is the power to fashion a remedy consistent with what the justice of the case may require." In light of the purposes of the SVPA the appropriate remedy in this case is not to order Snyder released from custody. The trial court was ordered to adjourn the pending probable cause hearing, remand the matter to the SDH with directions to follow the mandates of section 6601, and arrange for further examination of Snyder by two independent professionals.

 

People v. Roa (B264885, 5/2/2017)
11 Cal.App.5th 428
[1.A, 5.B, 5.C] Reversal of commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP) required under People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 where court allowed experts to relate inadmissible case-specific hearsay contained in district attorney investigation reports. A jury found that Roa was an SVP and he was committed to the state hospital for an indeterminate term. To establish Roa had the requisite mental disorder, prosecution experts testified that they diagnosed Roa with a number of disorders, including sexual sadism and paraphilic disorder. The experts were permitted, over Roa's hearsay and due process objections, to testify that their diagnoses were based, in part, on two district attorney investigator reports prepared in 1999 (the reports themselves were excluded as inadmissible hearsay). One report described a 1999 interview with Roa's wife wherein she described Roa sexually humiliating and abusing her. A second report described two incidents from 1967 and 1974 where Roa allegedly attempted to rape young girls. Roa appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred by allowing expert testimony concerning the contents of the 1999 district attorney investigator reports. Held: Reversed. An expert may "rely on hearsay in forming an opinion, and may tell the jury in general terms that he did so . . . What an expert cannot do is relate as true case-specific facts asserted in hearsay statements, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception." (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 685-686.) Here, it was proper for the experts to rely on the 1999 investigator's reports in forming their opinions; however, relating the case-specific content of those reports to the jury violated Sanchez. Under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, the error was not harmless. The Court of Appeal concluded Roa's challenges to the admission of other documentary materials were forfeited because the objections were not raised in the trial court.

 

Jones v. Whisenand (C079496, 2/10/2017)
8 Cal.App.5th 543
Summary coming soon.

 

Article Site Map:

Issues Pending Review
Compendium Topic Code Index
U.S. Supreme Court Cases
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Cases
California Supreme Court Cases
Year 2017 California Court of Appeal Cases – you are here
Year 2016 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2015 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2014 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2013 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2012 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2011 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2010 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2009 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2008 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2007 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2006 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2005 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2004 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2003 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2002 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2001 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 2000 California Court of Appeal Cases
Year 1999 California Court of Appeal Cases
Years 1998 & earlier Court of Appeal Cases

 

BACK TO TOP