People v. Curlee CA1/4
237 Cal. App. 4th 709
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Joel Curlee was charged in Alameda County under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) after a forcible rape conviction; three mental-health evaluations supported civil commitment as an SVP.
- At the SVP jury trial the People called Curlee as a witness during their case-in-chief; he testified and the jury found him an SVP.
- Curlee appealed, arguing (1) equal protection violation because NGI (not-guilty by reason of insanity) committees cannot be compelled to testify at extension hearings, (2) recent 2013 SVPA amendments rendered his commitment unconstitutional, and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to secure an expert witness.
- The trial record showed conflicting appellate authority at the time on whether NGI committees could be compelled to testify; Leonard supported compelling SVP testimony.
- The court remanded to allow the People to justify differential treatment between SVP’s and NGI’s as required by McKee I; it rejected Curlee’s ripeness challenge to the 2013 amendments and upheld the denial of the continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compelling an SVP to testify violates equal protection because NGI committees cannot be compelled | People: existing precedent allowed calling SVP committees (Leonard); no equal protection violation absent showing of similarity plus lack of justification | Curlee: NGI committees (per Hudec) cannot be compelled; SVP’s are similarly situated to NGI’s (McKee I) so differential treatment requires justification | Court: SVP’s and NGI’s are similarly situated for this purpose; remanded for evidentiary hearing to let People justify differential treatment; relief appropriate rather than automatic reversal |
| Forfeiture of equal-protection claim by failure to object at trial | People: Curlee forfeited by failing to object | Curlee: objection would have been futile given split authority; court should consider claim on appeal | Held: Court exercised discretion to address the claim on the merits to avoid ineffective-assistance issues and because of public-policy importance |
| Challenge to 2013 SVPA amendment (must seek conditional release first) — due process/ripeness | Curlee: amendment denying immediate petition for unconditional discharge violates due process | People: issue not ripe; amendment not in effect at time of commitment; Curlee has not sought relief under the amended scheme so no injury | Held: Not ripe and not reviewable on this appeal; dismissed without reaching merits |
| Denial of continuance to secure defense expert (Dr. Smith) | Curlee: continuance necessary because Dr. Smith changed availability and opinion; counsel needed time to depose or retain replacement | People: Dr. Smith indicated availability; additional continuance prejudicial to People and experts; defendant already had own expert testimony | Held: No abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably concluded Dr. Smith was available and Curlee was able to present his case (defense expert testified) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2010) (SVPA equal protection framework; remand to permit People to justify differential treatment of SVP’s)
- Hudec v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 815 (Cal. 2015) (NGI committees cannot be compelled to testify at commitment-extension proceedings)
- People v. McKee, 207 Cal.App.4th 1325 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (post-remand evidentiary showing that SVP’s differ from MDO/NGI justified indeterminate commitments)
- People v. Leonard, 78 Cal.App.4th 776 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (upheld compelling SVP committee testimony under then-existing precedent)
- In re Moye, 22 Cal.3d 457 (Cal. 1978) (equal protection policing of civil-commitment statutes; comparison of NGI and MDSO treatment)
- People v. Haynie, 116 Cal.App.4th 1224 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (held NGI committees could not be compelled to testify)
- People v. Lopez, 137 Cal.App.4th 1099 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (contrary view to Haynie; later disapproved by Hudec)
- Cramer v. Tyars, 23 Cal.3d 131 (Cal. 1978) (jury observation and live testimony are highly probative of present mental condition)
- Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1983) (different proof standards for insanity acquittees vs. other civil-commitment candidates explained)