People v. Green

California Court of Appeal Apr 7, 2000 No. A086488Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVP Act) does not violate equal protection principles by allowing the use of documentary evidence to prove prior convictions and the details of those offenses, as the state has a compelling interest in protecting the public from individuals likely to engage in sexually violent behavior.

Issues

Does the SVP Act violate equal protection by denying potential SVPs the same procedural rights as criminal defendants?
Is the use of documentary evidence to prove prior convictions and offense details under the SVP Act constitutionally permissible?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Legislature did not offend equal protection principles by permitting hearsay contained in documents to be introduced as proof of the fact of prior qualifying convictions or as proof of the details of those offenses in trial on the SVP petition.”

“The SVP law, by not according persons subject to a petition all rights accorded criminal defendants, does not on its face offend equal protection principles.”

94 Cal.Rptr.2d 355 (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 921 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Glen Foster GREEN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. A086488. Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four.

April 7, 2000. Review Denied July 26, 2000. [356] Robert Derham, San Francisco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Counsel for Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ronald S. Matthias, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Eric D. Share, Deputy Attorney General, Counsel for Respondent.

Certified for Partial Publication.[*]

POCHÉ, J.

Appellant, Glen Foster Green, appeals from a sustained petition and a commitment to Atascadero State Hospital entered after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of California's Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 6600 et seq.).[1]

A petition was filed October 6, 1997, seeking to have appellant declared a SVP. On November 14, 1997, the court conducted a hearing and after reviewing the petition and the reports of two mental health professionals found there was probable cause that appellant was a person coming within the provisions of section 6600. On the basis of the opinion in In re Parker (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1469-1470, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 (due process requires potential SVP be given opportunity at probable cause hearing to be fully heard, to cross-examine state's witnesses and to call own witnesses), appellant sought and received a second probable cause hearing which was conducted in July 1998. At that hearing after the People presented their documentary evidence, counsel for appellant called and examined at considerable length the two mental health experts, Drs. Putnam and Sheppard, whose reports were submitted in support of the petition. (See In re Kirk (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1075-1076, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 648.) At the conclusion of the hearing the court again found probable cause.

After a two-day trial on March 10, 1999, the jury returned a verdict finding the allegations of the petition to be true and the court committed appellant to the Department of Mental Health for two years. Appellant takes a timely appeal.

People v. Green

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

I. DISCUSSION

II. DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief