California Court of Appeal

In this case, defendant was involuntarily committed to a state mental hospital after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator (SVP). Defendant appealed, and later filed two petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. The actions were thereafter consolidated. The judgment is affirmed and the habeas petitions are denied, where: 1) the jury's determination that defendant is an SVP was supported by substantial evidence; 2) the jury was properly instructed on the state's burden of proof; 3) a jury instruction on the presumption of innocence was not required; 4) defendant's indeterminate commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) does not violate his rights to equal protection; and 5) despite the fact that the newest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association casts additional doubt on the validity of paraphilic coercive disorder, this does not completely undermine the state's case or render the state experts' testimony false evidence, as an SVP's commitment need not be based on a disorder that is uniformly recognized by the mental health community.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/13/2015
• Published 03/13/2015

Judges

• Humes

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel