People v. Kisling
131 Cal. Rptr. 3d 869
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Kisling petitioned on Feb. 9, 2007 to commit him as an SVP under Welf. & Inst. Code §6600 et seq.
- After a 19-day trial, a jury found Kisling to be an SVP and the court ordered an indeterminate commitment to DMH.
- Kisling argued trial court misinstructed the jury about a 1998 negative SVP finding and failed to adequately inquire into juror misconduct.
- Experts testified for the People that Kisling had antisocial personality disorder and paraphilia not otherwise specified, predicting a high risk of reoffending; Kisling's expert testified to low risk and that the disorder was in remission.
- Prop. 83 (2006) amended the Act, changing SVP commitments to indeterminate terms and altering DMH obligations; the court’s ultimate disposition was to reverse for equal-protection analysis in light of McKee and remand with suspension of proceedings.
- The California Supreme Court denied Kisling’s petition for review; the case was remanded to reconsider the equal-protection issue in light of McKee; finality of remand proceedings was tied to finality of McKee
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly instructed on the 1998 not-SVP finding and juror misconduct | Kisling contends the court failed to instruct correctly and investigate juror misconduct | Kisling’s assertion was not sustained by the court's reasoning | Denied; issue rejected |
| Whether the Act as amended by Prop. 83 violates equal protection | Kisling argues SVPs receive less favorable treatment than MDOs and NGIs | People contend no equal-protection violation shown at this stage | Remanded for equal-protection consideration in light of McKee |
| Whether Prop. 83 and the Act's changes violate the single-subject rule | Proposition 83 consolidates diverse criminal, civil, and regulatory measures | Provisions reasonably germane to strengthening sexual-offender laws | Prop. 83 did not violate the single-subject rule |
| Whether Prop. 83’s interaction with SB 1128 affects Kisling’s commitment | Prop. 83 supersedes SB 1128; issue matters | If Prop. 83 valid, no need to address supersession | Not reached; Prop. 83 deemed valid; remand on equal-protection grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2010) (equal protection concerns with Prop. 83; remand authority)
- Manduley v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.4th 537 (Cal. 2002) (single-subject analysis for multi-faceted initiatives)
- Brosnahan v. Brown, 32 Cal.3d 236 (Cal. 1982) (liberal construction of initiative power; single-subject context)
- Bourquez v. Superior Court, 156 Cal.App.4th 1275 (Cal. App. 2007) (single-subject rule analysis in Prop. 83 context)