People v. Hurtado
Decision Date | 22 August 2002 |
Docket Number | No. S082112.,S082112. |
Citation | 52 P.3d 116,28 Cal.4th 1179,124 Cal.Rptr.2d 186 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard HURTADO, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Chris M. Truax, under appointment by the Supreme Court, La Mesa; and Randall B. Bookout, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson and Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Meagan, J. Beale, Crystal L. Bradley, Steven T. Oetting, Robert M. Foster and Bradley A. Weinreb, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Resolving a question we left open in People v. Torres (2001) 25 Cal.4th 680, 686, footnote 2, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 824, 22 P.3d 871, We hold that before a defendant can be committed or recommitted under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 6600 et seq. (SVPA)),1 the trier of fact must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is likely to commit sexually violent predatory behavior upon release. Thus, the judge or jury trying the case must determine not only whether the defendant is likely to "engage in sexually violent criminal behavior" (§ 6600, subd. (a)), but also whether that behavior is likely to be directed "toward a stranger, a person of casual acquaintance with whom no substantial relationship exists, or an individual with whom a relationship has been established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimization." (§ 6600, subd. (e).)
The Court of Appeal here reached the same conclusion, and held that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury to determine whether defendant was likely to commit future predatory acts. The Court of Appeal also concluded, however, that under the facts of this case the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with the Court of Appeal opinion in all respects, and affirm its judgment.
As in People v. Torres, supra, 25 Cal.4th 680, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 824, 22 P.3d 871 (Torres), the issue raised here stems from the SVPA's use of dissimilar language to define a "predatory act" and a "sexually violent predator." We observed in Torres:
(Torres, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 682-683, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 824, 22 P.3d 871.)
The statute's definition of "predatory act" comes into play at the next stage, the probable cause hearing. There, the superior court must "determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the [defendant] is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon his or her release." (§ 6602, subd. (a), italics added.) If the court finds probable cause, the matter is set for trial.
Section 6604 provides that at trial "[t]he court or jury shall determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the person is a sexually violent predator." The phrase "sexually violent predator" is defined in section 6600, subdivision (a), as a person likely to "engage in sexually violent criminal behavior." Nothing in section 6604 expressly requires the trier of fact to determine whether the sexually violent criminal behavior is "predatory" behavior—that is, behavior directed at a stranger, a casual acquaintance, or someone cultivated for victimization as defined in section 6600, subdivision (e). Thus, as we noted in Torres, the SVPA is "unusual in that its language requires the court at a probable cause hearing to decide whether the defendant `is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon his or her release' (§ 6602, subd. (a)), but it does not expressly provide for such an issue to be decided by the trier of fact at the trial." (Torres, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 686, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 824, 22 P.3d 871.)
We take the facts from the Court of Appeal opinion:
The trial court instructed the jury under CALJIC No. 4.19, as it read before the 2002 revision.2 The instruction...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Peyton
...small but extremely dangerous group of sexually violent predators ...’ " who are "mentally ill." ( People v. Hurtado (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1179, 1192, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 186, 52 P.3d 116 ( Hurtado ), quoting Stats. 1995, ch. 763, § 1 ; People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 327......
-
People v. Gonzales
...state constitutional error, our review for prejudice would still be governed by the Watson standard. ( People v. Hurtado (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1179, 1190, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 186, 52 P.3d 116 [ Watson standard applies to all error under state law].) In addition to his state law claims, defendant as......
-
People v. Williams
...Crane, supra, 534 U.S. 407, 122 S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Hurtado (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1179, 1194, 124 Cal. Rptr.2d 186, 52 P.3d 116.) Because it was essentially undisputed that defendant's diagnosed mental disorder involved serious diffi......
-
People v. Reynolds
...determination that the defendant is likely to commit "sexually violent predatory criminal behavior." (People v. Hurtado (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1179, 1186-1187, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 186, 52 P.3d 116.) A defendant is "likely [to] engage in sexually violent [predatory] criminal behavior" if he or she "i......
-
California Register, 2017, Number 49. December 8, 2017
...v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 796; People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) , (2002) 27 Cal.4th 888; People v. Hurtado (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1179; People v. Torres (2001) 25 Cal.4th 680; and People v. Turner (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th INFORMATIVE DIGEST AND POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW PURSUANT TO GO......
-
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 9, § 4014 Forensic Report
...Code; People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) (2002) 27 Cal.4th 888; People v. Torres (2001) 25 Cal.4th 680; and People v. Hurtado (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1179. ...