People v. Mercer

Opinion

WARD, J.

J.Defendant Trell James Mercer, Jr., appeals from his commitment to Atascadero State Hospital following a jury finding that he was a sexually violent predator within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVP Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was a sexually violent predator likely to reoffend if released. He also contends the SVP Act denied him equal protection of the law because it treats offenders differently than they are treated under other civil commitment schemes. In a supplemental brief, defendant contends the prosecution failed to meet its burden of establishing the reliability of the protocol and techniques its expert witnesses had used to predict he was likely to reoffend. We find no error, and we affirm.

Facts and Procedural Background

*

Analysis

I.

The Evidence Was Sufficient to Support the Jury’s Finding

Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was a sexually violent predator likely to reoffend if he was released.

A.

Standard of Review

No court has yet articulated the standard for considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support a commitment under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600. However, in the context of commitments under the

[466]

mentally disordered offender law (MDO Law) (Pen. Code, § 2960 et seq.), courts apply the same test as for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction. (See

People

v.

Martin

(1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 714, 719 [165 Cal.Rptr. 773].) Similarly, in the context of extended commitments under Penal Code section 1026.5 for defendants acquitted by reason of insanity, courts apply the same test. (See