People v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 05 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. E036242.,E036242.
• Citation: 139 Cal.App.4th 111,42 Cal.Rptr.3d 761
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven Arthur REYNOLDS, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

42 Cal.Rptr.3d 761

139 Cal.App.4th 111

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven Arthur REYNOLDS, Defendant and Appellant.

No. E036242.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two.

May 5, 2006.

[42 Cal.Rptr.3d 765]

Chris Truax, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Megan Beale, Bradley A. Weinreb and Shari A. Lawson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

KING, J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Steven Arthur Reynolds appeals from an order committing him to the State Department of Mental Health for treatment in a secured facility for two years, after a jury determined he was a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 6600 et seq.)¹ Defendant contends: (1) the trial court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss the People's original commitment petition, because he had only one, not two, prior qualifying convictions for purposes of the SVPA; (2) the trial court erroneously refused to follow "existing law" at the time his motion to dismiss was originally heard; (3) the admission of testimonial hearsay statements in police and probation reports, through the testimony of the People's expert psychologists and other witnesses, violated his due process right to confrontation and was prejudicial; and (4) the trial court prejudicially erred in allowing one of the prosecution's expert witnesses to express opinions on "legal issues," including whether defendant had committed sexually violent predatory acts on two or more victims and was likely to reoffend. Although we conclude that the trial court erred in allowing certain expert testimony, we find the errors harmless and affirm the order of commitment.

OVERVIEW OF THE SVPA

In enacting the SVPA, "the Legislature expressed concern over a select group of criminal offenders who are extremely dangerous as the result of mental impairment, and who are likely to continue committing acts of sexual violence even after they have been punished for such crimes. The Legislature indicated that to the extent such persons are currently incarcerated and readily identifiable, commitment under the SVPA is warranted immediately upon their release from prison. ..." (Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1143-1144, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492, 969 P.2d 584.)

At trial, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is an SVP. (§ 6604; Hubbart v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1147, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492, 969 P.2d 584.) An SVP is "a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against two or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior." (§ 6600, subd. (a), italics added; People v. Vasquez (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1225, 1231, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 610, 25 P.3d 1090.)

The SVPA requires a 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 "is found to present a substantial danger, that is, a serious and well-founded risk, of committing such crimes if released from custody." (People v. Roberge (2003) 29 Cal.4th 979, 982, 988, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 861, 62 P.3d 97, fn. omitted.) "Evidence of the person's amenability to voluntary treatment, if any is presented, is relevant to the ultimate determination whether the person is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory crimes if released from custody." (Id. at p. 988, fn. 2, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 861, 62 P.3d 97.)

"[W]here the requisite SVP findings are made, `the person shall be committed for two years to the custody of the State Department of Mental Health for appropriate treatment and confinement in a secure facility designated by the Director of Mental Health....'" (Hubbart v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1147, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492, 969 P.2d, 584.) "Confinement generally cannot exceed two years unless a new petition is filed and an extended commitment is obtained from the court." (Ibid.)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 1980, defendant pled no contest to one count of committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and one count of oral copulation with a child under age 14 (Pen.Code, § 288a, subd. (c)). The crimes occurred in 1979 when defendant was 20 years old, and involved a single victim, a five-year-old boy named Jeffrey. According to police and probation reports and other records, defendant had the boy fondle defendant's penis. Defendant then pulled the boy's pants down, fondled the boy's penis, and orally copulated the boy. Another boy, Kevin, then age five, witnessed the crimes.

A third boy, Lloyd, then age nine, reported that defendant had been exhibiting his penis and masturbating in front of young boys in the area for 18 months to two years. Defendant admitted to police and admitted at trial that he orally copulated Jeffrey. For his 1980 convictions involving Jeffrey, defendant was committed to Patton State Hospital (PSH) as a mentally disordered offender. At PSH, defendant was diagnosed with pedophilia, and was not responsive to treatment. Following his release from PSH, defendant was placed on probation for five years. As part of his probation, he was ordered not to associate with minors under age 18.

In 1984, when defendant was 25 years old, his probation was extended after he masturbated in a tree house in the presence of two young boys. Defendant did not touch the boys, but asked one of the boys to touch him. The boy declined. As a result of this incident, defendant was not convicted of any crimes or returned to PSH.

In 1993, defendant pled guilty to four counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under age 14. (Pen.Code, § 288, subd. (a).) The crimes were committed in 1992 against a six-year-old boy named Joseph. Using a motorized cart, defendant took Joseph to a trash dumpster area in a trailer park in which the boy lived and orally copulated the boy approximately seven times. On two occasions, he put a plastic dildo in the boy's anus. Defendant admitted to police that he orally copulated the boy and put a dildo in the boy's anus. For his 1993 convictions involving Joseph, defendant was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Also in 1993, three other children reported that defendant had committed similar crimes against them in 1992. Joseph's half sister, nine-year-old Natalie, reported that defendant rubbed his penis against her vagina on two occasions. On one occasion, he ejaculated. Defendant admitted to police that he masturbated in front of the girl. A nine-year-old boy, John, claimed that defendant pulled his pants down. And 12-year-old Patrick, a cousin to Joseph and Natalie, reported that defendant fondled him through his pants.

In the 1992 incidents involving Natalie, John, and Patrick, defendant used his golf cart to lure the children to secluded locations, just as he had in the 1992 incidents involving Joseph. All four of the children lived in the same trailer park. Defendant was originally charged with crimes involving Natalie, John, and Patrick, but these charges were dismissed when defendant pled guilty to four counts of violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), based on the incidents involving Joseph.

On December 13, 2000, defendant was released on parole. On June 13, 2001, his parole officer saw a child's bicycle for sale in the front yard of defendant's home, where defendant was living with his mother and his boyfriend, Robert. The parole officer ordered defendant to get rid of the bicycle, but defendant did not comply. Defendant testified that he did not comply because the bicycle did not belong to him. Robert and defendant's mother also testified that the bicycle did not belong to defendant, but belonged to Robert's niece. Defendant's mother placed the bicycle in the front yard and had been trying to sell it. On June 15, 2001, defendant was arrested for violating the terms of his parole and was sent to Atascadero State Hospital (ASH). While at ASH, defendant did not take part in any treatment programs.

Defendant was found in possession of child pornography while in prison in 1997 and again while at ASH in separate incidents in 2001 and 2003. He was found masturbating with another male patient at ASH in 2002, and on another occasion was found loitering in the shower looking at other undressed males.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 4, 2002, the Riverside County District Attorney originally petitioned the superior court to commit defendant as an SVP. Trial commenced on June 24, 2004. On July 9, 2004, a jury determined that defendant was an SVP, and defendant was ordered committed to the State Department of Mental Health for treatment in a secured facility for a period of two years.

Before trial, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground he had only one, not two, qualifying prior convictions for purposes of the SVPA. He argued that his 1980 no contest plea and resulting conviction was not a prior conviction for purposes of the SVPA. The trial court denied the motion. He renewed the motion shortly before trial and during trial in June and July 2004. The motion was again denied.²

The People called Dr. Romanoff, a forensic psychologist, and Dr. Harry Goldberg, a clinical psychologist, as expert witnesses. Both testified that defendant's 1980 and 1993 convictions were qualifying prior convictions, because the underlying incidents involved substantial sexual contact. Both experts also opined that defendant suffered...