California Supreme Court Watch

#22-281 Needham v. Superior Court, S276395. (G060670; 82 Cal.App.5th 114; Orange County Superior Court; M-16870.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) allow the People to retain a private expert to testify at trial as to whether a defendant is a sexually violent predator, or are the expert witnesses limited to those designated by the State Department of State Hospitals (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6601 & 6603)?

Petition for review granted: 10/26/2022

Case fully briefed: 4/04/2023

Cause argued and submitted: 4/03/2024

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 7/01/2024

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Needham v. Superior Court (2024) 16 Cal.5th 333.)

“Under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA or the Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.), a person convicted and imprisoned for certain sex offenses may be civilly committed for treatment in a secure facility following completion of a prison term. The Act sets out the procedures for formally evaluating a defendant as a potential sexually violent predator (SVP), as well as for initiating and litigating a commitment petition. In People v. Superior Court (Smith) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 457 (Smith), we concluded the People may share discovery of the defendant’s treatment records with their retained expert. (Id. at pp. 469–472.) Here we resolve two additional questions regarding the People’s retained expert. We hold that, although the People may call their retained expert to testify at trial, both to contest the testimony of other witnesses and to offer an independent opinion as to whether the defendant qualifies as an SVP, the People’s retained expert may not compel a defendant to be interviewed or participate in testing before trial. We reverse the Court of Appeal’s contrary judgment and remand the case for trial.” (fns. omitted.)

Justice Corrigan authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Kruger, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.

Justice Groban filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, in which Justice Liu concurred.