Walker v. Superior Court, 494 P.3d 2

The San Francisco District Attorney petitioned to commit Jeffrey Walker under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). Two DSH-appointed psychologists produced evaluation reports diagnosing disorders and concluding Walker likely would reoffend.
The experts’ reports relied on detailed out‑of‑court accounts of two alleged rapes (1989 and 2005) that did not result in qualifying predicate convictions; the reports quoted a probation report and a police affidavit that summarized victim statements.
At the SVPA probable cause hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code § 6602(a)), the trial court admitted the psychologists’ evaluation reports over Walker’s hearsay objections, and found probable cause to proceed to trial.
Walker repeatedly sought dismissal and writ relief; the Court of Appeal split with other appellate decisions over whether § 6602(a) permits admission of nonpredicate‑offense hearsay in expert reports.
The Supreme Court held § 6602(a) does not create an exception allowing admission of hearsay about nonpredicate offenses via expert evaluation reports, found the admission prejudicial, reversed, and remanded for a new probable cause hearing.

Issue	Walker's Argument	People’s Argument	Held
Whether § 6602(a) implicitly creates a hearsay exception permitting admission of hearsay in expert evaluation reports about nonpredicate offenses at an SVPA probable cause hearing	§ 6602(a) contains no such exception; hearsay about nonpredicate offenses in reports is inadmissible	§ 6602(a) authorizes review of the petition and attached evaluations; Parker and prior practice permit admitting evaluation reports and their hearsay	No. Neither the statute, its history, related SVPA provisions, nor decisional law create an exception for hearsay about nonpredicate offenses in expert reports at the probable cause hearing.
Whether admission of the contested hearsay required reversal	The hearsay was foundational to the experts’ opinions and the court’s probable cause finding; its admission prejudiced Walker	The reports and expert testimony justified inclusion; cross‑examination cured any prejudice	The admission was prejudicial because the inadmissible hearsay materially supported diagnoses and the probable‑cause finding; reversal and remand for a new hearing required.

People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (an expert may not testify to case‑specific hearsay as true unless independently proven or covered by exception)
In re Parker, 60 Cal.App.4th 1453 (1998) (formulated procedures for SVPA probable cause hearings allowing introduction of expert evaluations subject to cross‑examination)
Cooley v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 228 (2003) (probable cause hearing must test sufficiency of evidence for all SVPA elements)
People v. Otto, 26 Cal.4th 200 (2001) (courts may find hearsay exceptions in decisional law; discusses § 6600 documentary proof of predicate convictions)
People v. Bennett, 39 Cal.App.5th 862 (2019) (excluded inadmissible hearsay in SVPA evaluations regarding dismissed rape allegations)
People v. Superior Court (Couthren), 41 Cal.App.5th 1001 (2019) (applied Sanchez to conclude hearsay in evaluations is governed by Evidence Code; reached similar exclusionary view)
Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1138 (1999) (describes SVPA purpose and framework)