People v. Burroughs
6 Cal. App. 5th 378
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Joseph Burroughs was adjudicated an SVP after a jury trial and committed to Coalinga State Hospital; he appealed challenging competency and extensive evidentiary rulings.
- The prosecution relied on two SVP evaluators (Drs. Webber and North) who did not interview Burroughs and based opinions on documentary records (police reports, probation reports, hospital and custody records, and a 969b packet).
- Experts diagnosed Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) and testified Burroughs was likely to reoffend; they described in detail both two qualifying convictions (lewd acts on a minor and attempted rape) and numerous uncharged/alleged sexual offenses and misconduct in custody.
- Defense expert (Dr. Malinek) also diagnosed ASPD but rejected using unproven allegations as factual basis and concluded Burroughs did not meet the SVP mental-disorder–predisposition requirement.
- Trial court admitted documentary hearsay (including probation and police reports) and allowed experts to recount case‑specific facts from those sources as the basis of their opinions; it denied a stay for competency training relying on Moore.
- The Court of Appeal rejected the competency claim but held Sanchez controls evidentiary limits on experts: the experts impermissibly related as true numerous case‑specific hearsay matters; the errors were prejudicial and required reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should stay SVP proceedings to assess/restore mental competency | Moore bars a competency‑based stay; due process doesn't require competence for SVP proceedings | Burroughs: competency (communication/refusal) requires stay and competency training; Moore distinguishable | Court: Moore controls — no due process right to competence in SVP proceedings; stay denied affirmed |
| Whether experts may testify about whether prior convictions were “sexually violent” | Experts may explain facts underlying their opinions; documentary evidence supports experts' conclusions | Burroughs: legal qualification (whether an offense is "sexually violent") is for the trier of fact, not experts | Court: Experts should not opine on purely legal status (sexually violent) but error here was harmless because documentary evidence independently established it |
| Whether experts may relate case‑specific facts from out‑of‑court records as true (expert basis testimony) | Prosecution: experts may rely on and recount records as basis for opinions; documents admitted; jury can be instructed on limited use | Burroughs: Sanchez requires that experts may not relate case‑specific hearsay as true unless independently admitted or within hearsay exception; argued testimony and documents included uncharged, inflammatory allegations | Held: Under Sanchez experts may not present case‑specific hearsay as true unless independently admissible; much expert testimony here improperly conveyed inadmissible hearsay; error was prejudicial and warrants reversal |
| Admissibility of specific documentary exhibits (police/probation/969b/DOJ alias doc) | People: section 6600(a)(3) and Otto permit documentary proof of details of qualifying offenses; 969b packet admissible to prove convictions | Burroughs: many report sections (uncharged offenses, non‑qualifying history, custody misconduct, alias rape record) exceeded 6600(a)(3) and were unduly prejudicial | Held: Many documentary portions were inadmissible as bases for case‑specific truth and experts should not have testified to them; some documents (probation/police about qualifying offenses, 969b packet) were admissible for qualifying offense details, but DOJ alias doc was not shown admissible; cumulative hearsay was prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (expert may not relate case‑specific out‑of‑court statements as true unless independently admissible or within hearsay exception)
- Moore v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 802 (Cal. 2010) (due process does not require mental competence to proceed in SVP commitment/recommitment proceedings)
- People v. Stevens, 62 Cal.4th 325 (Cal. 2015) (in MDO/SVP context experts cannot prove elements of qualifying offense by opinion where documentary evidence is required)
- People v. Otto, 26 Cal.4th 200 (Cal. 2001) (Welf. & Inst. Code §6600(a)(3) permits admission of documentary hearsay—e.g., probation/presentence reports—to prove details of prior sex offenses)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (standard for prejudicial error review: "reasonable probability" the verdict would have been more favorable absent error)
- People v. Dean, 174 Cal.App.4th 186 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (969b prison packets admissible to prove existence of prior convictions in SVP proceedings)