229 Cal. App. 4th 285
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Gray pled guilty in 2005 to assault with intent to commit oral copulation with knife and to assault with a deadly weapon by force; sentenced to five years.
- In 2010 the DA filed a petition to commit Gray as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under SVPA.
- Probable cause found in 2011; 2012 jury found Gray an SVP and committed him to DSH for an indeterminate term.
- This appeal challenges the SVPA as applied to Gray and challenges admission of HIV/Hepatitis C evidence (unpublished portion addressed separately).
- California appellate courts have repeatedly upheld the SVPA as constitutionally applied; this court follows those decisions and affirms the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the SVPA as applied constitutional? | Gray argues ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy, and equal protection violations. | People contend the SVPA satisfies strict scrutiny and is constitutional as applied. | SVPA as applied passes strict scrutiny; equal protection challenges rejected. |
| Did the trial court properly address equal protection after remand on McKee II? | Gray contends McKee II was wrongly decided and merits independent analysis or reversal. | People rely on McKee II and subsequent published opinions upholding the approach. | Court adopts the published equal protection analyses upholding the SVPA; rejects Gray's challenge. |
| Admission of evidence concerning Gray's HIV and Hepatitis C status—reversible? | Gray contends admission was error affecting due process. | People maintain evidence was properly admitted or harmless; unresolved in published portion. | Unpublished portion concludes no reversal based on HIV/HCV evidence. |
| Should the court consider post-commitment amendments to the SVPA in deciding this case? | Gray argues amendments post-commitment render the statute unconstitutional as applied. | People argue only the version in effect at the time of commitment matters here. | Court declines to apply post-commitment amendments toGray's case; analyzes as of commitment. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2010) (SVPA not punitive; due process/ex post facto rejected)
- People v. McKee, 207 Cal.App.4th 1238 (Cal.App.4th 2012) (McKee II remand; equal protection and evidence standards)
- People v. Kisling, 223 Cal.App.4th 544 (Cal.App.4th 2014) (endorses McKee II; equal protection analysis persuasive)
- People v. McDonald, 214 Cal.App.4th 1367 (Cal.App.4th 2013) (classwide equal protection approach; de novo review affirmed)
- People v. Landau, 214 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal.App.4th 2013) (SVPA equal protection analysis sustained)
- People v. McCloud, 213 Cal.App.4th 1076 (Cal.App.4th 2013) (equal protection considerations in SVPA context)
- People v. McKnight, 212 Cal.App.4th 860 (Cal.App.4th 2012) (SVPA equal protection discussion)