51 Cal.App.5th 682
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In June 2015 the People filed an SVP commitment petition against Jeffrey Walker supported by two statutorily required psychological evaluations (MacSpeiden and Karlsson) that concluded Walker met SVP criteria. The evaluations relied on various records and contained case-specific hearsay about two alleged rapes that did not result in rape convictions.
- Walker objected at the probable cause hearing to admission of the evaluations as containing inadmissible hearsay; the court overruled the objection, the hearing lasted multiple days, Walker cross‑examined the evaluators and presented contrary witnesses (including a third psychologist), and the trial court found probable cause.
- Walker moved to dismiss later, relying on People v. Sanchez and subsequent appellate decisions (Bennett, Couthren) that had excluded similar hearsay at SVP probable cause hearings; the trial court denied relief and Walker filed this writ petition.
- Central legal question: whether the SVP statutory scheme (§§ 6601–6602) permits a court at a probable cause hearing to consider the evaluators’ reports and the case‑specific hearsay they contain, or whether Sanchez bars such use absent independent proof or another hearsay exception.
- The court held that section 6602(a) requires the judge to review the petition (which necessarily incorporates the evaluations) and creates a limited hearsay exception allowing the trial court to consider the psychological evaluations — including case‑specific hearsay in them — at the probable cause stage, but not at the later SVP trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of case‑specific hearsay in statutorily required psychological evaluations at an SVP probable cause hearing | Walker: Sanchez bars experts from relating case‑specific hearsay unless independently proven or covered by an ordinary hearsay exception, so the evaluations (and probable cause finding) relied on inadmissible evidence | People: The SVP Act mandates and contemplates use of neutral, standardized evaluations; Parker/Cooley permit consideration of those reports at probable cause hearings despite hearsay | Held: §6602(a) effectively creates a limited hearsay exception for the evaluations at the probable cause stage; the court may consider case‑specific hearsay in those reports at that hearing (but not at trial) |
| Whether Sanchez’s rule excluding expert‑related case‑specific hearsay controls the probable cause hearing | Walker: Sanchez applies and requires exclusion of the contested hearsay at the probable cause hearing | People: Sanchez does not displace the SVP statutory scheme and the rule in Parker/Cooley that the court may consider the evaluators’ reports | Held: Sanchez remains good law for trials, but it does not bar consideration of the statutorily mandated evaluations (and their hearsay) at the §6602 probable cause hearing because the statute incorporates those reports and creates a specific exception |
| Whether the psychological evaluations must be physically attached to the petition to be considered | Walker (implicit): only attached materials should be reviewed; otherwise petition review could be circumscribed | People: Evaluations are integral to and necessarily part of the petition process and must be reviewed whether attached or submitted separately | Held: The evaluations are deemed incorporated into the petition regardless of attachment; the judge must review them when deciding probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (expert testimony cannot supply case‑specific hearsay as true unless independently proven or covered by an exception)
- Cooley v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 2002) (probable cause hearing must encompass elements of SVP definition and is informed by the mandated psychological evaluations)
- In re Parker, 60 Cal.App.4th 1453 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (probable cause hearing requires more than paper review; defendant may challenge expert evaluations and cross‑examine evaluators)
- Bennett v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.App.5th 862 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (probable cause hearing — held case‑specific hearsay in evaluations inadmissible under Sanchez)
- People v. Superior Court (Couthren), 41 Cal.App.5th 1001 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (upheld exclusion of evaluations at probable cause hearing on Sanchez/hearsay grounds)
- In re Malinda S., 51 Cal.3d 368 (Cal. 1990) (statutory mandate to receive social studies in juvenile proceedings creates hearsay exception for multiple‑level hearsay in those reports)
- Conservatorship of Manton, 39 Cal.3d 645 (Cal. 1985) (court may admit an initial‑hearing report while excluding it at a later trial to avoid redundant proceedings)
- People v. Cheek, 25 Cal.4th 894 (Cal. 2001) (analogizing rights and procedures between SVP probable cause hearings and other SVP pretrial proceedings)