People v. Flint
22 Cal. App. 5th 983
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Scott Flint, a repeat child-sex offender, was tried under California's Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) and, after a jury verdict, committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for an indeterminate term.
- Before trial Flint moved to bar the prosecution from calling him as a witness, arguing equal protection because persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) cannot be compelled to testify at commitment-extension hearings; the trial court denied the motion and the People called Flint in their case-in-chief.
- The People also called three prior victims and DSH psychologist G. Preston Sims as their expert; Flint presented defense experts and other witnesses.
- On appeal Flint argued (1) compelled testimony violated equal protection, (2) the People’s expert related impermissible case-specific hearsay in light of People v. Sanchez, and (3) cumulative error required reversal.
- The court: (a) held Flint’s compelled testimony raised a serious equal protection issue and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to allow the People to justify treating SVPs differently from NGIs regarding compelled testimony; (b) rejected reversal based on Sanchez because most of the expert’s case-specific statements were duplicated or admissible through other evidence and any error was harmless; (c) rejected cumulative-error reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Flint) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compelling an SVP to testify violates equal protection because NGIs cannot be compelled | SVPs are similarly situated to NGIs; compelling testimony violated equal protection and harmed the defense | SVPs and NGIs are not similarly situated; rational basis suffices and any error was harmless | Court found SVPs and NGIs similarly situated for this purpose, strict scrutiny applies, and remanded for a People’s evidentiary showing to justify disparate treatment; noted compelled testimony was prejudicial here |
| Whether the People’s expert improperly recited case‑specific hearsay in violation of Sanchez | Sims recited extensive inadmissible case‑specific hearsay; failure to object should be excused; error prejudiced the verdict | Much of Sims’s testimony duplicated admissible evidence or fell within hearsay exceptions; any error harmless | Court held Sanchez altered the law so failure to object was excused; most challenged testimony duplicated admissible evidence or party admissions, and any error was harmless under Watson |
| Whether defense counsel’s failure to object to the expert’s hearsay was forfeiture or ineffective assistance | Failure to object excused because Sanchez was decided after trial; alternatively ineffective assistance | Forfeiture; but People argued evidence independently admissible | Court excused forfeiture given post-trial change in law and did not reach ineffective-assistance claim |
| Whether cumulative errors require reversal | Combined errors deprived Flint of a fair trial | Only compelled-testimony error (if unjustified) is prejudicial; Sanchez error harmless | Court rejected cumulative-error reversal; directed remand limited to equal-protection evidentiary showing; if People fail to justify, new SVPA hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (expert testimony that relates case‑specific out‑of‑court statements must satisfy hearsay rules)
- Hudec v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 815 (2015) (NGIs cannot be compelled to testify at commitment‑extension hearings)
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (2009) (SVP and NGI schemes compared; strict scrutiny applied to certain disparate treatment in civil‑commitment contexts)
- People v. Curlee, 237 Cal.App.4th 709 (2015) (SVPs and NGIs are similarly situated regarding compelled testimony; compelled testimony prejudicial; remand for People to justify disparity)
- People v. Field, 1 Cal.App.5th 174 (2016) (applies strict scrutiny to testimonial‑privilege disparity and orders remand to allow People to justify it)
- People v. Blackburn, 61 Cal.4th 1113 (2015) (discusses structural errors requiring automatic reversal versus errors reviewable for prejudice)