People v. Hoffman CA3
61 Cal.App.5th 976
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- In 2008 Hoffman pled guilty to three counts of lewd and lascivious acts on minors under 14; in 2015 the DA sought civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA).
- Victims and witnesses testified Hoffman's conduct as an elementary school teacher included inappropriate touching and lap-sitting; one prior 2006 incident with an 11-year-old led to police contact.
- Prosecution expert Dr. Gangaw Zaw diagnosed pedophilic disorder, scored Hoffman a 2 on the Static-99R ("average" risk ≈ 5.6% five-year recidivism) but emphasized dynamic factors (failure to seek treatment, choice of teaching career, disregard for self-imposed restraints) and testified Hoffman was likely to reoffend.
- Defense experts (Drs. Dempsey and Haverty) agreed on the diagnosis and Static-99R scoring but emphasized dynamic assessments showing low-to-moderate risk, amenability to treatment, and that supervision/treatment would reduce risk.
- The jury found Hoffman an SVP and the trial court committed him to the Department of State Hospitals; Hoffman appealed arguing insufficient evidence because the static risk estimate was low.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the Static-99R score alone was not dispositive and Dr. Zaw’s reasoning about dynamic risk factors provided substantial evidence supporting the SVP finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to find Hoffman an SVP likely to engage in sexually violent predatory conduct if released | Expert testimony (Dr. Zaw) tied dynamic factors to a substantial danger of reoffense despite a moderate static score; jury may credit that testimony | Static-99R score of 2 (~5.6% five‑year risk) shows low probability; experts agreed static risk was moderate and treatment/supervision would mitigate risk | Affirmed. Static score alone insufficient; dynamic factors and Dr. Zaw’s testimony gave a reasonable basis for the jury’s SVP finding under the substantial‑evidence standard |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Roberge, 29 Cal.4th 979 (2003) (SVPA "likely" means a substantial danger that the person will commit such crimes if free)
- People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti), 27 Cal.4th 888 (2002) (clarifies "substantial danger" standard need not mean >50% probability)
- People v. Mercer, 70 Cal.App.4th 463 (1999) (SVPA appeals reviewed under criminal substantial‑evidence standard)
- People v. McCloud, 213 Cal.App.4th 1076 (2013) (explains substantial‑evidence review for SVPA commitments)
- People v. Poe, 74 Cal.App.4th 826 (1999) (a single witness/expert, if credited, can support a factfinder’s finding)