legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Andrade CA6
BY THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 26, 2022, be modified as follows:
On page 17, at the end of the first sentence in the first partial paragraph, insert the following footnote:
In a petition for rehearing, Andrade points out that the DSM-5’s definition of pedophilic disorder is limited to an interest in prepubescent children and that Sidhu’s use of “pubescent” is inaccurate rendering his expert opinion entirely unreliable and mandating reversal. We disagree. Whether Sidhu misspoke or there was a transcription error, Simon accurately described pedophilic disorder as an abiding sexual interest in prepubescent children and diagnosed Andrade with pedophilic disorder. The testimony of a single mental health expert witness is sufficient to support a finding that a person suffers from a severe mental disorder. (People v. Bowers (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 870, 879.)

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale