Reilly v. Superior Court
57 Cal. 4th 641
| Cal. | 2013Background
- Reilly, previously committed as an SVP, faced a recommitment petition after evaluators (Drs. Clipson and Webber) initially concluded in 2008 that he remained an SVP; a probable-cause finding followed and trial was set.
- The Department used a 2007 SDSH Clinical Evaluator Handbook and Standardized Assessment Protocol for SVPA evaluations; the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) later determined parts of that 2007 protocol were invalidly adopted under the APA.
- While Reilly awaited trial, updated evaluations were done in 2009 under an emergency (2009) protocol; those updated evaluations again found him to be an SVP.
- In light of the OAL determination, courts of appeal (notably Ronje) ordered new evaluations and new probable-cause hearings when initial evaluations used the invalid 2007 protocol; Reilly sought dismissal or new evaluations based on that line of authority.
- The Orange County Superior Court denied Reilly’s plea to dismiss; the Court of Appeal granted his writ and dismissed the petition relying on Ronje; the People sought review in the California Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held that use of an invalid assessment protocol is error but dismissal or new evaluations are not automatically required — the petitioner must show the protocol error was material (i.e., reasonably might have affected the outcome).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an SVPA commitment petition must be dismissed or new evaluations ordered when initial section 6601 evaluations used an assessment protocol later adjudged invalid | Reilly: Ronje and progeny require new valid evaluations and a new probable-cause hearing without a showing of prejudice or materiality | People: OAL invalidation is error but petitioner must prove the error was material (prejudicial) before dismissal or replacement evaluations are required | The Court held that materiality must be shown; absent a showing the invalid protocol materially affected the evaluations, the petition may proceed and dismissal was improper (Court of Appeal reversed) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti), 27 Cal.4th 888 (discusses judicial review of evaluator reports and material legal error standard)
- People v. Pompa-Ortiz, 27 Cal.3d 519 (preliminary hearing irregularities reviewed for prejudice; dictum on pretrial relief)
- People v. Konow, 32 Cal.4th 995 (defines denial of substantial right as prejudicial error that reasonably might have affected the outcome)
- People v. Standish, 38 Cal.4th 858 (limits Pompa-Ortiz; relief requires error that reasonably might have affected the outcome)
- In re Ronje, 179 Cal.App.4th 509 (Court of Appeal ordering new evaluations after OAL invalidation; disapproved insofar as it omitted materiality requirement)
- Gray v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.4th 322 (updated evaluations post-filing are primarily evidentiary; lack of concurrence does not mandate dismissal)
- Davenport v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th 665 (applied Ronje but noted absence of showing that invalid protocol materially affected evaluations)