Needham v. Super. Ct. of Orange Cty.
Docket Number | S276395 |
Decision Date | 01 July 2024 |
Citation | 322 Cal.Rptr.3d 273,550 P.3d 570 |
Parties | Nicholas NEEDHAM, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest. |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, G060670, Orange County Superior Court, M-16870, Elizabeth G. Macias, Judge
Martin Schwarz, Public Defender, Laura Jose, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Adam Vining, Assistant Public Defender, and Elizabeth Khan, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Todd Spitzer, District Attorney, and Yvette Patko, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.
Under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA or the Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 6600 et seq.), a person convicted and imprisoned for certain sex offenses may be civilly committed for treatment in a secure facility following completion of a prison term. The Act sets out the procedures for formally evaluating a defendant as a potential sexually violent predator (SVP), as well as for initiating and litigating a commitment petition. In People v. Superior Court (Smith) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 457, 241 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 431 P.3d 141 (Smith), we concluded the People2 may share discovery of the defendant’s treatment records with their retained expert. (Id. at pp. 469-472, 241 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 431 P.3d 141.) Here we resolve two additional questions regarding the People’s retained expert. We hold that, although the People may call their retained expert to testify at trial, both to contest the testimony of other witnesses and to offer an independent opinion as to whether the defendant qualifies as an SVP, the People’s retained expert may not compel a defendant to be interviewed or participate in testing before trial. We reverse the Court of Appeal’s contrary judgment and remand the case for trial.
In 2016, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation referred defendant Nicholas Needham for evaluation as a possible SVP. (§ 6601, subd. (a)(1).) The State Department of State Hospitals (DSH) appointed two evaluators, Dr. Jeremy Coles and Dr. Michael Musacco, who each determined that defendant had a mental disorder making him likely to engage in sexual violence unless civilly committed and treated as provided by the SVPA. (§ 6601, subds. (c), (d).) The Orange County District Attorney’s Office then petitioned to commit defendant as an SVP. (§ 6601, subd. (i).)
Before the probable cause hearing, Dr. Coles submitted an updated evaluation, changing his opinion and concluding that defendant did not qualify for commitment. As required by statute, the DSH appointed two other evaluators, Dr. Yanofsky and Dr. Korpi. (§ 6601, subds. (e), (g).) Dr. Yanofsky concluded defendant qualified as an SVP, while Dr. Korpi opined he did not. Doctors Coles, Musacco, and Korpi testified at the probable cause hearing. The trial court concluded there was probable cause to believe defendant was an SVP and ordered a trial. (§ 6602, subd. (a).) Subsequently, however, Dr. Yanofsky submitted an updated evaluation indicating he, too, had changed his opinion and no longer believed defendant qualified as an SVP.
The People retained Dr. Craig King as an expert and sought discovery of defendant’s evaluations and records. Following a hearing and over defense objection, the trial court granted the request, relying on Smith, supra, 6 Cal.5th 457, 241 Cal. Rptr.3d 1, 431 P.3d 141. The court later ruled that Dr. King could interview "and/or … test" defendant as well as obtain defendant’s additional medical records. Dr. King interviewed defendant for three to four hours, covering various aspects of defendant’s treatment, sexual behavior, and coping skills. The interview was audiotaped.
Defendant filed three motions to preclude Dr. King from testifying at trial. He argued, inter alia, that 1. Dr. King should not have been granted access to defendant’s treatment records, 2. the Act did not authorize Dr. King to interview or test defendant, and 3. Dr. King should not be allowed to testify that, in his opinion, de- fendant qualifies as an SVP. The court denied these motions.
Defendant sought a writ of mandate/prohibition to prevent Dr. King from conducting any further interviewing or testing of defendant and from testifying at trial. The writ petition characterized the court’s order as having permitted Dr. King to do an "evaluation" of the defendant, although the court’s order did not use that term. In resolving defendant’s petition, the Court of Appeal accepted that nomenclature. This characterization is not precisely accurate, however. As we explain, the Act and accompanying regulations set out in great detail all that is encompassed in a formal precommitment evaluation and provide it is to be done by DSH evaluators. What the court order permitted was an independent interview and testing by Dr. King, which, as discussed post, is not authorized under the Act. The Court of Appeal summarily denied defendant’s writ petition. We granted defendant’s petition for review and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal with direction to issue an order to show cause. A divided Court of Appeal thereafter granted defendant’s writ petition and directed the trial court to exclude Dr. King’s testimony. (Needham v. Superior Court (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 114, 125-129, 297 Cal.Rptr.3d 840.) We granted the People’s petition for review from that ruling.
The SVPA "provides for the involuntary civil commitment of certain sex offenders before the end of their prison or parole revocation terms." (Walker v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 177, 190, 283 Cal. Rptr.3d 296, 494 P.3d 2 (Walker); see § 6600 et seq., eff. Jan. 1, 1996.) The Act sets out with specificity how the SVP process is to be initiated, who may evaluate a person for possible SVP treatment, and how that formal evaluation is to be conducted. (Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1143-1144, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492, 969 P.2d 584 (Hubbart).) An SVP action is a special civil proceeding. (Reilly v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 641, 648, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 410, 304 P.3d 1071 (Reilly); Moore v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 802, 815, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 199, 237 P.3d 530 (Moore).)
(Walker, supra, 12 Cal.5th at pp. 190-191, 283 Cal. Rptr.3d 296, 494 P.3d 2.) If the court finds probable cause that "the individual named in the petition is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon his or her release," the case proceeds to trial. (§ 6602, subd. (a).)
Among the protections afforded to the defendant are the rights to counsel, discovery of reports and evaluation materials, retention of experts, trial by jury and proof of his status beyond a reasonable doubt. (§§ 6603, subd. (a); 6604.) The statutory provisions are augmented by title 9, chapter 15 of the California Code of Regulations, which particularizes the "standardized assessment protocol" called for by the Act. (§ 6601, subd. (c); see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, §§ 4000-4020.1.) The protocol describes, among other things, the qualifications required of evaluators; the questions they are to address in their evaluation report; the extensive records they are to review; a face-to-face clinical interview of the defendant, with directions as to what the interview should include; the items required for inclusion in the evaluator’s forensic report; detailed citations to all documents and other sources relied upon; notation of the evaluation procedures employed; and detailed requirements for the evaluator’s findings. The protocol also contains express provisions for how the evaluator is to interact with the subject. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, §§ 4011-4013.) The evaluator must write a forensic report, which the DSH certifies as the "official evaluation" before providing a copy to the court and parties. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, § 4014.1; see id., § 4014.)
An SVP commitment requires a finding that the person suffers from "a currently diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and...
To continue reading
Request your trial