California Court of Appeal

Judgment finding defendant to be a sexually violent predator is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the Sexually Violent Predator Act, as amended, resulted in the violation of defendant's state and federal constitutional rights concerning due process, ex post facto laws, and double jeopardy, and violated the principle against retroactive application of laws; and 2) the trial court erred by excluding evidence that would have allowed defendant to contest his 1985 sexual assault conviction, by amending the burden of proof instruction to eliminate the presumption that he was not a sexually violent predator, and by refusing to disclose juror information to support his motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/26/2009
• Published 01/26/2009

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• John L. Dodd, Tustin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant., Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr., Karl T. Terp and Bradley Weinreb, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.