People v. Shazier
60 Cal. 4th 109
Cal.2014Background
- Defendant Dariel Shazier sought SVP commitment under SVPA after three trials; two prior SVP petitions were decided against him by the Court of Appeal; two prosecution experts diagnosed a diagnosed mental disorder predisposing him to reoffend, while defense contested the disorder and its link to dangerousness; defendant had a long history of sexually abusive offenses against postpubescent boys and violated prior parole conditions; trial evidence included extensive histories of grooming and manipulation of victims; Court of Appeal reversed after finding multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct, prompting Supreme Court review.
- The third SVP trial proceeded with evidence from DMH evaluators and defense experts; the People argued defendant’s release would be dangerous without secure confinement, while defense urged that his behavior could be managed with community treatment; the jury found SVP status, and judgment was entered; the Court of Appeal reversed on misconduct grounds, which the Supreme Court then reversed.
- The majority evaluated whether prosecutorial misconduct violated due process or required reversal; the Court held one clear and one arguable misconduct, but concluded no reasonable probability these affected the outcome; the case is remanded to address additional issues raised by defendant.
- The opinion clarifies SVPA standards for determining likelihood of reoffense, emphasizes treatment vs. custody considerations, and discusses the admissibility and impact of release plans and cross-examination about other cases in SVP evaluations.
- The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Court of Appeal’s reversal and remanded for further consideration of remaining issues, while affirming the SVP judgment based on strong evidence of disorder and risk.
- The decision includes extensive discussion of the balancing of proper prosecutorial conduct with the need to present relevant evidence about a dangerous mental disorder and release conditions in SVP proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct cumulation | Shazier: misconduct violated due process | Prosecutorial misconduct insufficient to overturn | No reversible prejudice; Court of Appeal reversed erroneously |
| Relevance of defendant’s release plans | Plans show risk if released and support need for custody | Release plans are irrelevant to disorder diagnosis | Release-plan evidence pertinent to ultimate issue; proper under Ghilotti framework |
| Cross-examination about other SVP cases | Impeaches bias of defense witness | Evidence unrelated to present case; prejudicial | Cross-examination permissible; not reversible error |
| Grooming and community-consequence arguments | Addressing grooming and consequences helps jury assess risk | Improper emphasis on social consequences | Not reversible; permissible argument within boundaries; instruction maintained |
Key Cases Cited
- Reilly v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.4th 641 (Cal. 2013) (SVP petition must consider treatment and custody; independent evaluators required)
- Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1138 (Cal. 1999) (Standard for probable cause and SVP proceedings)
- Ghilotti, 27 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002) (Guides whether disorder requires secure confinement or community treatment)
- Roberge, 29 Cal.4th 979 (Cal. 2003) (Definition of substantial danger and likelihood of reoffense)
- Krah v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App.4th 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (Evidence about parole conditions and SVP release considerations)
- Buffington, 152 Cal.App.4th 446 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (Prosecutorial cross-examination of experts; foundation issues under Buffington)
- Price, 1 Cal.4th 324 (Cal. 1991) (Cross-examining expert bias in SVP context)
- Zambrano, 41 Cal.4th 1082 (Cal. 2007) (Prosecutor's examination to expose bias in witnesses)
- Hill, 17 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 1998) (Standard for reversible prosecutorial misconduct; not automatic reversal)
- Dykes, 46 Cal.4th 731 (Cal. 2009) (Test for prejudice from prosecutorial remarks to jury)
- Chatman, 38 Cal.4th 344 (Cal. 2006) (Guidance on prosecutorial argument and improper inferences)
- Edwards, 57 Cal.4th 658 (Cal. 2013) (Defense-counsel and prosecutorial argument standards)