People v. Superior Court (John Couthren)

         [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 606] Mendocino County Superior Court, Trial Judge: Hon. Cindee Mayfield. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR-95-20535)

Page 1003

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1004

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1005

         COUNSEL

         Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler and Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorneys General, Moona Nandi and Bridget Billeter, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner.

         Jeffrey A. Aaron, Public Defender, Eric O. Rennert, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Robert C. Smith, Deputy Public Defender, for Real Party in Interest.

         OPINION

         Sanchez, J.

         Following a probable cause hearing, respondent court dismissed the People’s petition for civil commitment of real party in interest John Couthren as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually

Page 1006

Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst. Code,^[1] § 6600 et seq. (SVP Act)) and referred him for release on parole. At the hearing, the People relied solely on documentary submissions— including the SVP petition and attached expert psychological evaluations— to establish probable cause. The trial court, after construing relevant precedent and considering the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 102, 374 P.3d 320 (Sanchez ), concluded that the psychological evaluations were case-specific hearsay statements submitted for their truth, rendering them inadequate to meet the People’s evidentiary burden at a probable cause hearing once an objection had been lodged. In the absence of other competent evidence, the trial court dismissed the petition.

         In these writ proceedings, the People seek extraordinary relief from the trial court’s dismissal order, arguing that long-settled precedent permits the People to prove probable cause through use of written expert evaluations, despite their hearsay nature, and that Sanchez does not undermine the legitimacy of this procedure. We disagree and deny the petition.

          I. BACKGROUND

         In March 2018, the Mendocino County District Attorney filed a petition to commit Couthren as an SVP under the SVP Act. Specifically, the petition alleged that Couthren had been convicted of felony oral [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 607] copulation in 1973 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and felony kidnapping (id., § 207, subd. (a)) in each of 1979 and 1999, all sexually violent offences pursuant to section 6600, subdivision (b). The petition further alleged that Couthren’s most recent term of incarceration was expiring and that he represented a current danger to others. Attached to the petition was a letter from a deputy director of the Department of State Hospitals recommending Couthren’s commitment as an SVP, as well as four certified copies of expert evaluation reports from psychologists who examined Couthren. Drs. Hartley, Korpi, and Flinton all opined that Couthren met the statutory criteria for designation as an SVP. Dr. Kokubun disagreed, asserting that Couthren did not currently have a diagnosable mental disorder that predisposed him to the commission of criminal sexual acts.

         A probable cause hearing was set for November 26, 2018. In September 2018, the People informed Couthren’s attorney that the probable cause hearing would be submitted on the reports of the three concurring psychologists (Hartley, Korpi, and Flinton), but that the report of the dissenting psychologist (Kokubun) had been provided to the court for its information. Although Couthren’s counsel initially raised no objection to this procedure,

Page 1007

on the date set for hearing he filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude the expert evaluations on hearsay grounds in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th 665, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 102, 374 P.3d 320. Neither the People nor Couthren presented any live testimony at the probable cause hearing. Instead, the People submitted the matter on the certified expert evaluations attached to the petition and certain additional conviction documentation regarding Couthren’s prior offenses. After argument regarding the impact of Sanchez on this procedure, the court took the matter under submission.

         On December 10, 2018, the trial court issued its written ruling with respect to the SVP petition. The court first reviewed the records of conviction submitted by the People and those portions of the expert evaluations discussing the details of Couthren’s qualifying convictions, which the court deemed admissible pursuant to section 6600, subdivision (a)(3).^[2] It found that the People had sufficiently established the first element under the SVP Act, that Couthren had committed qualifying sexually violent offenses against multiple victims. The court concluded, however, that the remaining elements necessary to support the designation of Couthren as an SVP could not be established solely on the basis of hearsay written evaluations once Couthren’s counsel had objected to the admissibility of these reports. Consequently, it found that the People had "failed to present admissible evidence from which a reasonable person could form a strong suspicion that Mr. Couthren suffers from a mental disorder that creates a likelihood that he would engage in sexually violent predatory criminal conduct if released from prison." It dismissed the SVP petition and ordered Couthren referred for release on parole.

         The People responded by filing a motion in the trial court seeking a temporary stay of the dismissal order to allow for review of the trial court’s ruling. Thereafter, on December 13, 2018, the People filed both the instant writ petition in this court and a corresponding notice of [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 608] appeal in the superior court (People v. Couthren, A156088, ordered deferred Apr. 4, 2019, pending writ proceeding). We issued a temporary stay and, after receiving an informal response and reply, issued an order to show cause that requested additional briefing. Having received that briefing, the matter is now before us for decision.^[3]

Page 1008

          II. DISCUSSION

          A. Pertinent Provisions of the SVP Act

          The Legislature enacted the SVP Act in 1995. (Added by Stats. 1995, ch. 763, § 3; see § 6600 et seq.; Howard, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 148, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 481.) In doing so, it " ‘expressed concern over a select group of criminal offenders who are extremely dangerous as the result of mental impairment, and who are likely to continue committing acts of sexual violence even after they have been punished for such crimes. The Legislature indicated that to the extent such persons are currently incarcerated and readily identifiable, commitment under the [SVP Act] is warranted immediately upon their release from prison. The [SVP] Act provides treatment for mental disorders from which they currently suffer and reduces the threat of harm otherwise posed to the public. No punitive purpose was intended.’ " (People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 205, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 327, 26 P.3d 1061');">26 P.3d 1061');">26 P.3d 1061');">26 P.3d 1061');">26 P.3d 1061');">26 P.3d 1061');">26 P.3d 1061');">26 P.3d 1061 (Otto ).) Civil commitment under the SVP Act "can only commence if, after a trial, either a judge or a unanimous jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is an SVP" (Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 243, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 177, 57 P.3d 654');">57 P.3d 654');">57 P.3d 654');">57 P.3d 654 (Cooley ))— that is, an individual who has been convicted of ...