41 Cal.App.5th 1001
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Mendocino County filed an SVP commitment petition against John Couthren (Mar. 2018) attaching four certified expert evaluation reports (three concluding SVP; one dissenting) and conviction records.
- The probable cause hearing was submitted solely on documentary evidence; no live testimony was presented. On the hearing day Couthren objected, invoking People v. Sanchez.
- The trial court admitted only those portions of the records related to qualifying convictions under Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600(a)(3), but excluded the remainder of the expert evaluations as inadmissible case-specific hearsay and dismissed the petition for lack of admissible evidence to support probable cause.
- The People sought extraordinary relief (writ) arguing longstanding practice permitted proving probable cause by written expert evaluations despite hearsay concerns and that Sanchez did not undermine that practice.
- The Court of Appeal denied the writ: it held Evidence Code hearsay rules apply at SVP probable cause hearings, expert evaluation reports containing multiple levels of hearsay cannot be admitted in toto to prove the truth of case-specific facts, and Sanchez bars admitting such case-specific hearsay unless independently proven or within a hearsay exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evidence Code rules (including hearsay) apply at an SVP probable cause hearing | SVP §6602’s command that the court “review the petition” implies an exception permitting review/admission of attached expert reports | Probable cause hearings are judicial proceedings subject to ordinary evidentiary rules, so hearsay rules apply | Evidence Code applies; hearsay rules govern SVP probable cause hearings |
| Whether expert evaluation reports (with multiple hearsay) may be admitted in full to establish probable cause | Longstanding practice and some precedent permit the prosecution to submit expert reports to prove probable cause without live testimony | Expert reports contain multiple levels of case-specific hearsay and cannot be accepted for their truth unless admissible under an exception or independently proven | Expert reports cannot be admitted wholesale for their truth; multiple hearsay must meet exceptions or be independently established |
| Whether Sanchez altered admissibility of expert case-specific hearsay at SVP probable cause hearings | Sanchez concerned expert testimony, not documentary submissions at probable cause; it should not bar the long-standing documentary practice | Sanchez forbids treating case-specific out-of-court statements as true via experts; its rule applies equally to written evaluations | Sanchez applies: experts or reports may not be used to introduce case-specific hearsay as true unless independently proven or within a hearsay exception |
| Whether §6600(a)(3) or precedent (e.g., Parker/Cooley) creates a broader implied exception to admit evaluator reports for any purpose at probable cause | The court’s duty to "review the petition" and some cases allow use of evaluators’ opinions imply such an exception | §6600(a)(3) is a narrow statutory exception limited to proving predicate-offense details; other precedent did not address admissibility of multiple hearsay; no broad exception exists | No broad implied exception; §6600(a)(3) is limited and does not authorize wholesale admission of evaluator reports for all case-specific matters |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (an expert may not relate case-specific out-of-court statements as true unless independently proven or within a hearsay exception)
- Cooley v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 2002) (SVP probable cause hearing modeled on criminal preliminary hearing; purpose is to test sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Otto, 26 Cal.4th 200 (Cal. 2001) (§ 6600(a)(3) creates an evidentiary allowance for documentary proof of predicate-offense details)
- People v. Stevens, 62 Cal.4th 325 (Cal. 2015) (legislature can craft special evidentiary rules for SVP proceedings; courts should not broaden exceptions beyond statutory text)
- In re Parker, 60 Cal.App.4th 1453 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (probable cause hearing must permit adversarial presentation and cross-examination; did not analyze competency of multiple hearsay in depth)
- Bennett v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.App.5th 862 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (applied Sanchez to SVP probable cause hearing and held experts may not supply key case-specific allegations that lack admissible proof)
- People v. Yates, 25 Cal.App.5th 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (error to allow experts to relate case-specific facts drawn from records not admitted or within exception)
- Whitman v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 1063 (Cal. 1991) (criminal preliminary hearings disallow multiple hearsay; testimonial practice limited to certain officer testimony)