People v. Landau
246 Cal. App. 4th 850
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Sidney Nathaniel Landau, civilly committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP) to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) in 2009, received a 2010 annual evaluation finding he remains pedophilic but is no longer dangerous and could be treated in a less-restrictive setting.
- Landau filed a petition (§ 6605/6608) for release; after a probable-cause finding, a jury trial on his petition occurred in December 2013 and the jury found he remained an SVP; the court recommitted him to DSH.
- The People’s case relied heavily on testimony from the People’s expert, Dr. Park Dietz, who discussed diagnoses, testosterone levels, past statements, hospital records, and other documentary sources.
- The prosecutor called Landau as the last witness for the People; Landau testified to admissions about past offenses and sexual interests.
- Landau appealed, raising equal protection (compelled testimony), hearsay and confrontation claims from Dietz’s testimony, denial of the jury’s consideration of conditional release, prosecutorial misconduct, and cumulative error; the Court of Appeal reversed based primarily on prejudicial hearsay rulings and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Landau) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compelling Landau to testify for the People violated equal protection / right against compelled testimony | No similar protection is required for SVP proceedings; calling Landau was proper and harmless | SVPs are similarly situated to NGIs for trial-procedure purposes, so denying the NGI-style absolute right not to be called violated equal protection; compelled testimony is prejudicial | Court concluded SVPs are similarly situated to NGIs for this purpose; remand would be required to decide justification, but reversal was based on evidentiary error so Landau may renew claim on remand |
| Whether the trial court improperly admitted extensive hearsay through People’s expert (Dietz) and thereby prejudiced Landau | Many disputed statements were offered to explain the basis for Dietz’s opinion or were harmless / cumulative | Admission of numerous hospital-record entries, prior reports, and multi-level hearsay through Dietz was improper and prejudicial | Court held many hearsay admissions (notably hospital record contents and other institution notes) were improperly admitted and prejudicial; reversal warranted |
| Whether admission of that evidence violated Landau’s confrontation/due process rights | Confrontation clause applies only in criminal trials; expert-basis evidence may be non-hearsay supporting opinion | Even in civil SVP proceedings, due process includes a confrontation component; prejudicial hearsay may violate that right | Court found reversal on hearsay grounds sufficient and did not decide the confrontation claim, but acknowledged a civil-due-process confrontation component exists |
| Whether Landau was entitled to present conditional release to the jury if unconditional release was denied | People argued conditional-release claims should be handled separately and submitting them to the jury would prejudice the People absent a prior probable-cause finding | The petition for unconditional release subsumes conditional-release relief; jury should be permitted to decide conditional release if it rejects unconditional release | Court held excluding conditional-release issues from jury was error and prejudicial; on remand jury should be able to consider conditional release if unconditional release is not granted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dean, 174 Cal.App.4th 186 (expert testimony that relays institutional record details may improperly introduce unreliable hearsay)
- People v. Campos, 32 Cal.App.4th 304 (testifying expert may state reasons for opinion but may not present content of reports/opinions of nontestifying experts)
- People v. Catlin, 26 Cal.4th 81 (expert may rely on hearsay but court must exclude hearsay whose prejudice outweighs probative value)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (out-of-court statements relied on by an expert may be treated as non-hearsay basis for the expert’s opinion)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. Supreme Court plurality and opinions on whether expert reliance on out-of-court statements implicates Confrontation Clause)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause principles for testimonial statements)
- Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (due process limits civil confinement of persons who are not dangerous)
- People v. Curlee, 237 Cal.App.4th 709 (analysis comparing SVPs and NGIs for certain equal protection/procedural issues)
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (SVPs and NGIs similarly situated for equal protection purposes as to commitment terms)