39 Cal.App.5th 862
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Joseph Murl Bennett faced an SVPA commitment petition after serving a prison term; he had qualifying rape convictions from 1986 and was released in 2008.
- In 2012 Bennett was arrested on allegations of forcible rape and oral copulation; those counts were later dismissed and he was convicted only of failing to register, not the alleged sexual offenses.
- Two independent examiners (Drs. Korpi and Matosich) diagnosed Bennett with a paraphilic disorder and concluded he was likely to reoffend; both reports and testimony relied heavily on the alleged 2012 incident.
- Defense counsel objected under People v. Sanchez to experts relating case-specific hearsay (the 2012 allegation); the trial court made mixed rulings, ultimately saying it would strike case-specific facts but then relied on the 2012 incident in finding probable cause.
- The Court of Appeal held that the 2012 incident constituted inadmissible case-specific hearsay (not covered by the SVPA documentary exception), that it was central to the experts' diagnoses and the trial court's probable-cause finding, and granted relief ordering dismissal of the SVP petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether experts may relate case-specific out-of-court statements as true at a probable-cause hearing | Bennett: Sanchez bars experts from relating case-specific hearsay unless independently proven or within an exception | People: Sanchez need not apply at probable-cause stage; hearsay rules are relaxed and expert reports may be used | Sanchez applies; experts cannot relate case-specific hearsay as true absent independent proof or a hearsay exception |
| Whether 2012 incident was admissible under section 6600(a)(3) documentary hearsay exception | Bennett: 2012 allegation was not a qualifying conviction, so exception does not apply | People: court could consider police/probation reports relied on by experts | 6600(a)(3) is limited to qualifying predicate offenses; 2012 allegations were not covered and thus not admissible under that exception |
| Whether admission/reliance on the 2012 hearsay was prejudicial to the probable-cause finding | Bennett: experts said 2012 incident 'made or broke' the diagnosis; without it probable cause fails | People: probable-cause standard is low; any hearsay error at preliminary stage can be harmless | Prejudicial: the 2012 incident was central to the diagnosis and the court's finding; without admissible proof probable cause unsupported; dismissal required |
| Whether Parker or other procedural rules permit admitting otherwise inadmissible case-specific hearsay at probable-cause hearing | Bennett: procedural posture does not override Sanchez protections | People: Parker suggests expert reports may be presented despite hearsay nature at probable-cause hearings | Parker does not authorize admitting case-specific hearsay absent exception; Sanchez controls and limits what experts may present |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (expert may not relate case-specific hearsay as true absent independent proof or hearsay exception)
- Cooley v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 2002) (describes SVPA probable-cause hearing function and standard)
- People v. Otto, 26 Cal.4th 200 (Cal. 2001) (scope of SVPA documentary hearsay exception for predicate convictions)
- People v. Roa, 11 Cal.App.5th 428 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (expert testimony inadmissible where based on unproven case-specific hearsay)
- People v. Yates, 25 Cal.App.5th 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (Sanchez applies in SVP context; experts cannot testify to unadmitted case-specific hearsay)
- People v. Burroughs, 6 Cal.App.5th 378 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (experts may not rely on or recount inadmissible documentary hearsay that is not covered by exceptions)