Rabuck v. Superior Court
221 Cal. App. 4th 1334
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Rabuck is subject to a commitment petition under SVPA (Welf. & Inst. Code §6600 et seq.).
- In 2012 the Orange County court found probable cause to believe Rabuck is an SVP and ordered continued detention.
- Rabuck challenged the court’s receipt of 2011 SVP evaluation reports by Drs. Sreenivasan and Clipson, prepared under §6601(c).
- Ronje (2009) required new evaluations unless material error is shown; Reilly (2013) clarified material-error standard and allowed use of updated/new evaluations if no material error.
- New evaluations were ordered in 2010 after Ronje/2007 SAP issues; SDSH adopted the 2009 SAP (regulatory) and the 2011 reports were admitted at the probable cause hearing.
- Rabuck’s writ petition challenging admissibility of the 2011 reports was denied; California Supreme Court remanded to address Reilly’s impact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the 2011 reports new evaluations under §6601(c) or updates under §6603(c)? | Rabuck—reports are updates, not new evaluations. | Rabuck—no merit; the reports were new evaluations. | New evaluations, not updates; admissible so long no material error. |
| Did the evaluators follow the 2009 SAP in preparing the 2011 evaluations? | Reports reflect 2007 SAP format, signaling noncompliance. | Evaluators followed 2009 SAP and explained tool choices. | Evaluators followed 2009 SAP; format deviations do not show noncompliance. |
| Is the 2009 SAP a legitimate standardized assessment protocol under §6601(c)? | 9 SAP not legitimate as defined by scientific/psychological standards. | 9 SAP properly implements §6601(c) and is legitimate. | 2009 SAP is a legitimate standardized assessment protocol. |
| Was the 2009 SAP properly promulgated as a regulation? | 9 SAP underground regulation not properly promulgated. | OAL emergency-permanent process complied; regulation valid. | 9 SAP validly promulgated; admissibility upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reilly v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.4th 641 (Cal. 2013) (material-error standard; new vs. updated evaluations permissible without automatic dismissal)
- People v. Yartz, 37 Cal.4th 529 (Cal. 2005) (SVPA framework and commitment procedures)
- In re Ronje, 179 Cal.App.4th 509 (Cal. App. 2009) (invalidated 2007 SAP as underground regulation; required new evaluations absent material error)
- Gray v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.4th 322 (Cal. App. 2002) (updated vs new evaluations; ‘currently diagnosed mental disorder’ concept)
- In re Lucas, 53 Cal.4th 839 (Cal. 2012) (statutory interpretation of protocol requirements)