72 Cal.App.5th 453
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Washington, convicted in 1984 of multiple sexual offenses, faced a petition (filed 2014) to commit him as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) under the SVPA and was subsequently committed for an indeterminate term after a court trial.
- At pretrial hearings Washington was often at Coalinga State Hospital and sometimes telephonically present; he waived presence for trial and his attorney entered appearances and defenses.
- At an April 8, 2019 hearing the court announced “no demand for a jury trial” and set a court (bench) trial; the court did not personally advise Washington of his statutory right to a jury or obtain a personal waiver.
- The trial court found the SVP petition true on April 30, 2019; Washington appealed, arguing (1) the SVPA requires an advisement and personal waiver of the jury right, (2) due process requires such procedures, and (3) the SVPA’s different treatment violates equal protection.
- The Court of Appeal concluded the SVPA’s text and legislative history do not require an advisement or personal waiver, rejected Washington’s due process claim on the record, but declined to find his equal protection argument forfeited and remanded for an opportunity to develop that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Washington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SVPA requires the court to personally advise an alleged SVP of the right to a jury trial and obtain the alleged SVP’s personal waiver before a bench trial | SVPA does not contain advisement/waiver language; statute sets default bench trial unless a demand is made, so no personal advisement or waiver is required | SVPA should be read like MDO/NGI/LPS statutes requiring personal advisement and personal waiver (per Blackburn/Tran) | Held: SVPA does not require personal advisement or personal waiver; Legislature chose a different scheme (bench trial absent demand) |
| Whether due process independently requires a court to advise and obtain a personal jury-trial waiver in SVP proceedings | No; SVP commitment is civil and existing procedures (counsel, presence, ability to demand jury) satisfy due process here | Yes; due process requires a knowing, intelligent, voluntary personal waiver analogous to criminal/other civil-commitment contexts | Held: No due process violation on these facts—Washington was telephonically present, waived presence, counsel agreed to bench trial, and record lacks evidence of erroneous deprivation |
| Whether SVPA’s jury-waiver framework violates equal protection by treating SVPs differently than other civil committees | Forfeited in trial court; if reached, People can justify differential treatment (e.g., greater dangerousness of SVPs) | SVPs are similarly situated to MDO/NGI committees and thus entitled to the same jury-waiver protections; differential treatment is unconstitutional | Held: Court declines to find forfeiture given unusual facts; remands so Washington may press an equal protection challenge and People may justify the differential treatment; conditional affirmance pending remand |
| Remedy if equal protection violation found | People: (if justified, no remedy) | If equal protection violation, vacate SVP order and grant jury trial unless Washington personally waives after advisement | Held: Conditional affirmation of commitment; on remand, if court finds equal protection violation, vacate SVP order and set jury trial unless defendant, after personal advisement, knowingly and intelligently waives jury |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Blackburn, 61 Cal.4th 1113 (2015) (MDO statute requires personal advisement and personal waiver of jury-right before bench trial)
- People v. Tran, 61 Cal.4th 1160 (2015) (same rule applied to NGI-commitment extension proceedings)
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (2010) (equal protection analysis of SVP statutes and remand procedures)
- State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.4th 339 (2015) (overview of SVPA commitment framework)
- People v. Otto, 26 Cal.4th 200 (2001) (due-process balancing factors for civil commitment)
- Moore v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 802 (2010) (SVP proceedings are civil; due-process protections apply in certain respects)
- People v. Allen, 44 Cal.4th 843 (2008) (limits on restricting defendant testimony in SVP proceedings)
- People v. Rowell, 133 Cal.App.4th 447 (2005) (SVPA does not require personal waiver or advisement of jury right)
- Conservatorship of Heather W., 245 Cal.App.4th 378 (2016) (comparative conservatorship jurisprudence requiring personal jury-waiver in LPS context)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (2007) (forfeiture doctrine exceptions where pure legal questions are raised on appeal)