People v. Baker
204 Cal. App. 4th 1234
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Baker convicted of arson of an inhabited structure; sentenced to 3 years in state prison.
- Board of Parole Hearings determined Baker was mentally disordered offender (MDO) in 2010; remained at issue.
- At bench trial, Dr. Kathi Studden testified for prosecution; she reviewed records and interviewed Baker.
- Dr. Studden diagnosed psychotic disorder with delusions; opined arson was a qualifying offense and Baker dangerous.
- Defense offered Baker’s testimony denying culpability and challenging treatment history and mental illness.
- Trial court found severe mental disorder, qualifying offense, 90 days treatment in year prior, nonremission, and substantial danger; Baker appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for 2962 criteria | Baker contends offense not shown to pose danger; 90 days treatment not proven. | People argues evidence supports all 2962 criteria, including offense and treatment. | Evidence supports 2962 criteria; substantial evidence standard satisfied. |
| Admission of hearsay/expert testimony | Baker objected to hearsay and scope of expert testimony; some testimony improper. | Prosecution argues lack of objection should not negate substantial evidence; some reliance on records permissible. | Objections to hearsay/expert scope sustained; nonetheless substantial evidence remains. |
| Whether arson of an inhabited structure proves 2962(b)/(e)(2)(D) | Arson conviction alone does not prove it posed substantial danger. | Arson inherently dangerous; conviction can satisfy if danger shown by record. | Conviction alone not conclusive; probation evidence showing danger supported criteria. |
| 90 days of treatment evidence | Dr. Studden’s testimony on treatment is hearsay/beyond expertise. | Evidence adequate; not preserved for review if objections raised or waived. | Issue not preserved; review waiver applies. |
| Role of expert opinion vs factual proof | Question whether expert can prove facts underlying offense or treatment duration. | Some criteria require nonexpert factual proof; expert opinion not mandatory for all elements. | Expert testimony not required for all criteria; some facts may be proven without expert opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Martin, 127 Cal.App.4th 970 (Cal. App. 2005) (standard for reviewing MDO evidence)
- Lopez v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 1055 (Cal. 2010) (MDO framework and procedures)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (Cal. 1996) (experts cannot use hearsay as independent proof)
- Downer v. Bramet, 152 Cal.App.3d 837 (Cal. App. 1984) (expert conclusions cannot substitute for law)
- People v. Villalobos, 145 Cal.App.4th 310 (Cal. App. 2006) (definition of an inhabited structure)