Filed 12/7/05 P. v. Burgess CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROOSEVELT BURGESS, Defendant and Appellant. | H027972 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 210740) |
Following a jury trial in which defendant was found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP), and committed to the custody of the Director of Mental Health for a period of two years, defendant brings the current appeal asserting the following claims: (1) the admission of documentary evidence at his trial violated his rights to confrontation and due process; (2) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of police reports from defendant's prior crimes; (3) the trial court erred by admitting expert testimony on an unadjudicated purse snatching incident that did not reliably identify defendant as the perpetrator; (4) the trial court erred by admitting testimony about Viagra; (5) the SVP act violates defendant's constitutional rights, and (6) cumulative error.
Statement of the Facts and Case
In June 2002, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition for defendant to be committed as an SVP under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq.[1] At the time of the filing of the petition, defendant had completed his sentence on a plea of no contest to three counts of forcible oral copulation, for which he received 32 years in state prison.
During defendant's trial, the district attorney presented the testimony of two psychologists, Doctors Clipson and Longwell. Dr. Clipson examined defendant and diagnosed him as meeting the criteria for paraphilia, voyeurism, frotteurism,[2] polysubstance abuse, antisocial personality disorder and borderline intellectual functioning. Dr. Longwell interviewed defendant twice, and based her diagnosis of defendant on the interviews and defendant's records.
During the interview with defendant, Dr. Clipson used a test with a 10-point scale to measure sexual interest. Defendant measured a six on this scale for interest in â€
