People v. McKee
207 Cal. App. 4th 1325
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- McKee challenged a trial court order on remand confirming an indeterminate SVP commitment after Prop. 83; the California Supreme Court remanded for an equal protection analysis.
- Prop. 83 shifted SVP commitment from a two-year term to an indeterminate term and required the burden to prove release for SVP comparators, with release possible only if the state either authorizes a petition or the defendant proves non-SVP status by a preponderance.
- McKee previously argued the unequal treatment of SVPs versus MDOs and NGIs violated equal protection under strict scrutiny; the remand court found substantial evidence supporting the disparate treatment.
- Evidence at remand included recidivism data, victim-trauma analyses, and diagnostic/treatment differences showing SVPs as a class differ from MDOs/NGIs.
- The court conducted de novo review of whether substantial evidence supported a reasonable perception that the disparate treatment was necessary to serve compelling state interests in public safety and humane treatment.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s order, concluding the People presented substantial evidence Justifying Prop. 83’s provisions on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proposition 83's SBP framework violates equal protection | McKee asserts SVP treatment is not justified. | People contends classifications are reasonable with compelling interests. | No violation; disparate treatment justified. |
| Whether the People provided substantial evidence on remand to justify disparate treatment | McKee argues the evidence is insufficient or misapplied. | People presented substantial evidence of greater SVP risk and unique harms. | Substantial evidence supports justification. |
| Whether evidence supports SVP diagnostic/treatment differences and victim trauma as bases for differential treatment | McKee claims evidence does not prove heightened risk or harm relative to MDOs/NGIs. | People demonstrates clinically distinct profiles and harms justify stricter controls. | Evidence supports the perception of greater risk and harm from SVPs. |
| Whether the least restrictive means requirement applies to the equal protection analysis | McKee argues the state must use the least restrictive means. | Court should apply strict scrutiny without requiring the least restrictive alternative. | Not required to adopt least restrictive means; strict scrutiny standard applies without that requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of Hofferber, 28 Cal.3d 161 (1980) (recognizes governmental ability to make reasonable distinctions for public safety)
- In re Moye, 22 Cal.3d 457 (1978) (strict scrutiny applied to equal protection in civil commitment cases)
- McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1 (2010) (boarded framework for equal protection review of SVP provisions; remand guidance)
- People v. Hubbart, 88 Cal.App.4th 1202 (2001) (permissible variation in confinement depending on danger levels)
- People v. Green, 79 Cal.App.4th 921 (2000) (strict scrutiny for disparate treatment in civil commitment)
- Professional Engineers v. Department of Transportation, 15 Cal.4th 543 (1997) (principles on drawing reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence)
- Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984) (least restrictive means concept discussed in strict scrutiny context)
- Weber v. City Council, 9 Cal.3d 1 (1973) (analysis related to equal protection and classifications)
- Moye (cited for standard), 22 Cal.3d 457 (1978) (strict scrutiny balancing for equal protection)