P. v. Badura
Defendant was found to be a sexually violent predator and was committed to Atascadero State Hospital for a two-year term pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act. Thereafter, he was recommitted for a second term. This case involves defendant’s third and fourth recommitment terms. Over defendant’s objection, the trial court consolidated both recommitment petitions for trial. A jury once again found defendant to be an SVP. Defendant was therefore recommitted for both terms.
Defendant contends:
1. The trial court erred by consolidating the recommitment petitions when defendant was ready to go to trial on one of them.
2. The trial court erred by preventing defendant’s counsel from questioning expert witnesses about the elements of indecent exposure.
Court held that any error in consolidating the two recommitment petitions has become moot and that the trial court properly prevented the expert witnesses from testifying about the elements of indecent exposure. Court affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Badura