People v. Wright
4 Cal. App. 5th 537
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- John Wright, with multiple prior convictions for lewd acts on underage females (1995, 1999, 2005), was tried under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) and committed in Jan. 2016 after a bench trial.
- The People’s sole expert, Dr. Michael Musacco, diagnosed Wright with "paraphilia not otherwise specified, hebephilia," relying mainly on victims’ ages and Wright’s pattern of offenses. He admitted the diagnosis was rare, controversial, and that he lacked information on the victims’ physical/sexual development, calling the case a "close call."
- Defense expert Dr. Amy Phoenix concluded Wright did not have a diagnosable mental abnormality under SVPA; she emphasized absence of evidence about victims’ sexual maturity and pointed to Wright’s sexual relationships with adult women.
- The trial court found Wright an SVP and committed him indefinitely, citing similar conduct, victims’ ages, and a pattern of targeting young females; the court did not address the evidentiary gaps regarding victims’ physical development.
- On appeal, Wright argued the commitment lacked substantial evidence because the hebephilia diagnosis was speculative (based on unsupported assumptions about victims’ sexual maturation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was substantial evidence of a diagnosed mental disorder (hebephilia) to support SVPA commitment | Musacco’s diagnosis shows Wright has a paraphilic disorder (hebephilia) based on victims’ ages and offense pattern | Diagnosis is speculative because experts lacked any evidence of victims’ physical/sexual development; opinions rested on unsupported assumptions | Reversed: diagnosis relied on speculation about victims’ development and did not constitute substantial evidence |
| Whether an expert’s opinion based on assumptions can support involuntary commitment | Expert’s training and interviews provide a reasonable basis for opinion despite gaps | Expert’s opinion must be grounded in record facts; unsupported assumptions are inadmissible and cannot support SVPA findings | Expert’s opinion here was inadmissible as substantial evidence because it rested on hypothetical, unsupported facts |
| Whether exclusion of hebephilia from DSM‑5 bars its use for SVPA commitment | (People) DSM listing not required under SVPA; diagnosis can still be considered | (Defense) DSM exclusion underscores controversy and lack of general acceptance | Court noted DSM omission but applied California precedent that DSM listing is not required; decision turned on evidentiary insufficiency rather than DSM status |
Key Cases Cited
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (expert opinion inadmissible when based on speculation)
- People v. Johnson, 235 Cal.App.4th 80 (SVPA mental disorder need not be listed in DSM)
- Wise v. DLA Piper LLP (US), 220 Cal.App.4th 1180 (expert opinion based on speculation cannot constitute substantial evidence)
- Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc., 114 Cal.App.4th 1108 (expert opinion must be grounded in evidentiary support)
- People v. Carlin, 150 Cal.App.4th 322 (standard of substantial evidence review for SVPA commitments)
- People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690 (speculation cannot support conviction or commitment)
- People v. Raley, 2 Cal.4th 870 (fact finding must be based on evidence, not mere speculation)
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Zuckerman, 189 Cal.App.3d 1113 (trial court must critically evaluate expert reasoning)