P. v. Rose
In the underlying civil commitment proceedings, the trial court allowed the prosecution to relitigate the finding that Warren David Rose, Jr., was not a sexually violent predator (SVP) at the time of his prior release and failed to instruct the jury it must find changed circumstances to establish that he currently suffers from a diagnosed mental disorder that makes him dangerous and likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon release. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6602; People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) (2002) 27 Cal.4th 888, 902.) The court disallowed evidence of a 1999 court finding that he was not an SVP and a 2001 jury finding that he was, based on an Evidence Code section 352 determination that the jury would be confused, misled, or distracted.
Fundamental principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not at the mercy of Evidence Code section 352. By excluding the evidence and failing to instruct the jury on the prosecution’s burden of proof, the court relegated the collateral estoppel principles embodied in Turner v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1046 (Turner) and People v. Munoz (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 421 (Munoz) to the vagaries of a section 352 balancing act, an error that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We reject, however, defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the 2006 amendments to the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)[1] We reverse the judgment of commitment and remand the matter to the trial court. Rose is entitled to a jury trial in accordance with the views expressed herein.
Comments on P. v. Rose