6 Cal. 5th 457
Cal.2018Background
- The SVPA permits civil commitment of a person convicted of sexually violent offenses who has a qualifying mental disorder; SDSH-designated psychiatrists/psychologists perform standardized evaluations used to decide whether to file a petition.
- The statute requires SDSH to provide the petitioning county attorney (often the district attorney) copies of initial, updated, or replacement evaluation reports and, upon request, the records reviewed by evaluators.
- Richard Smith faced an SVP petition filed by the Orange County DA; after multiple continuances SDSH evaluators issued updated/replacement evaluations in 2011 and 2014.
- The DA sought access to the underlying treatment records relied on by the SDSH evaluators and to permit the DA’s retained expert to review those records; the trial court denied the request, the Court of Appeal granted it, and the Supreme Court granted review.
- While review was pending the Legislature amended section 6603 to require evaluators to list records reviewed and to authorize subpoenas for certified copies to be provided to both parties, and to limit use of those records to proceedings under the SVPA.
- The core dispute: whether (1) the amended statute allows the DA to obtain otherwise-confidential treatment records reviewed by SDSH updated/replacement evaluators, and (2) whether the DA may share those records with a retained expert to prepare for trial and assist cross-examination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (People/DA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 6603(j)(1) permits the DA to obtain treatment records reviewed by SDSH evaluators, including records reviewed in pre-2016 evaluations | Amendments are not retroactive; subdivision (j)(1) applies only to updated (not replacement) evaluations and should not reach pre-amendment records | Section 6603(j)(1) authorizes subpoena of all records reviewed by an evaluator performing an updated evaluation; “updated” encompasses replacement evaluations and applies to future proceedings in the pending litigation | The amendment authorizes the DA to obtain records reviewed by updated or replacement evaluators, including records reviewed before the amendment as applied to the ongoing proceeding |
| Whether the DA may disclose those records to a retained expert despite general confidentiality under §5328 | §5328 bars disclosure of confidential treatment records to third parties, so DA cannot provide records to its retained expert | The SVPA and §6603(j)(1) permit use of those records in SVPA proceedings; sharing with a retained expert is necessary for meaningful expert assistance and cross-examination and may be conditioned by protective order | DA may disclose the records to its retained expert for use in the SVPA proceeding, subject to protective orders limiting other uses |
| Whether limiting disclosure to SVPA defendants but not MDO/MDSO programs raises equal protection concerns | Differential treatment of SVPs versus similar categories is arbitrary and lacks justification | Smith failed to show a credible showing of disparate treatment; legislative distinctions need not be addressed here | Equal protection challenge rejected for lack of a credible showing of different treatment |
| Whether the Legislature’s uncodified statement not to affect this Supreme Court determination requires ignoring §6603(j)(1) | The uncodified language indicates the Legislature intended the Court not to rely on the amendment to resolve expert-access issue | The uncodified clause cautions but does not preclude courts from considering the amended statute and its context | The Court considered §6603(j)(1) (and its legislative history) but held the uncodified language was not dispositive; the statute and SVPA purpose support expert access with protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1138 (discusses SVPA scheme and civil commitment process)
- Albertson v. Superior Court, 25 Cal.4th 796 (applied amended discovery provisions to pending SVP litigation and recognized DA access to information contained in updated evaluations)
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (importance of expert testimony in SVP proceedings)
- People v. Ghilotti, 27 Cal.4th 888 (evaluator’s legally accurate understanding of statutory criteria is crucial)
- People v. Smith, 40 Cal.4th 483 (role of cross-examination in challenging expert bases)
- Quarry v. Doe I, 53 Cal.4th 945 (application of legislation to pending litigation and prospective effect)
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (threshold for credible showing in selective prosecution/equal protection claims)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (need for expert assistance in mental-health-dominated proceedings)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (standards and centrality of expert interpretation in civil commitment proceedings)