In re BRIAN J., Part I
Extended Detention Act which permits continued detention of a juvenile offender who has reached the age at which release from custody would otherwise be required but who is determined beyond a reasonable doubt to be physically dangerous to the public because of his or her mental or physical deficiency, disorder, or abnormality that causes the person to have serious difficulty controlling his or her dangerous behavior does not deprive such juveniles of equal protection of the law since it does not treat them differently from similarly situated adult prisoners who are subject to civil commitments under the Sexually Violent Predators Act and the mentally disordered offender laws. Order extending commitment was not penal in nature, did not violate substantive due process, and did not result in cruel and unusual punishment since it was based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and was for purposes of treatment. Order was supported by substantial evidence that ward's mental disorder causes him serious difficulty in controlling his dangerous behavior and that risk of reoffense is a result of a mental disorder, including a violence risk appraisal based on defendant's file information that showed a 55 percent probability of violent recidivism in seven years after release and a 64 percent probability in 10 years after release, and a sex offender risk appraisal that showed a 58 percent probability of violent recidivism after seven years of release and a 76 percent probability after 10 years of release. Denial of mistrial based on improper argument by prosecutor, who implied the existence of facts not in evidence and interjected his personal views, was not error where trial court gave a specially tailored curative instruction.
Comments on In re BRIAN J., Part I