WPC bJc9)'k[ǘNRd(7Q 1*zaUęި*x"P4z+]wڄy7Bc+4_1L=M?Tm?Chšv!v,({ ݔÍ UwHʞ=CS iWGKRvؘD̵!/" D!B:&~!,5ؕM(]iSF*w%m*i{j#ε#$`&0jȺw0]pq=4Q7\Dz{#,?x%TGR):#d%D|WSӰX%c'VمMXM,E]#}Ulr:,L͍a[2Xmsfҳ+Ajx0.t޸xdTC#g_&Suxw%#j-H}Czߖ3Z#UHN % 0Y ^ b wn 4r   m  0ac U>' U0e 0w 0 0 06 0 0 0 0D{ 1 1uH 72  bHP LaserJet 4250 PCL 6 (Copy 2)0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,Ԣ74 ڋ34onnie3|xU  (;3$2#  0  .3  0  \  `&Times New Roman* `CG Times(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  xEGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)SDU_3SDU_4- - !/XXUSUS.,  _ R Q/@  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @QQ"TRAININGSEMINAR L @VV"#/QR _#/January21,2006 H @@@#/4#/CALIFORNIAMENTALHEALTH@@ @ @ @ @   L ЀCOMMITMENTREGIMENS :   #/#/@$ _NGI_,MDO,_SVP_Ԉ .~  @*#/Ƹ#/Ԉ@{{ J.BradleyOConnell    #/# R Q/@  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @QQ"TRAININGSEMINAR L @VV"#/QR #/January21,2006 H @@@#/#/CALIFORNIAMENTALHEALTH@@ @ @ @ @   L ЀCOMMITMENTREGIMENS :   @$ _NGI_,MDO,_SVP_Ԉ .~  @*#/ƃ#/Ԉ@{{ J.BradleyOConnell  :  @22" TableofContents   I._NGI_Ԁ(NotGuiltybyReasonofInsanity)..................................2 @ II.MDO(MentallyDisorderedOffender)..................................6 < III._SVP_Ԁ(SexuallyViolentPredator)...........................................10  IV. CrossCuttingIssuesCommontoallCommitments............16 !$ V.OtherMentalCommitmentIssues............................................19  $p #/#/  l&! #/ #   R Q/ OYY8/dd8  CALIFORNIAMENTALCOMMITMENTREGIMENS#/QR #/   #/^ # PreparedbyJ.BradleyOConnell "r StaffAttorney,FirstDistrictAppellateProject  p January2006   n   INTRODUCTION   l 0  ThisisaverybriefprimeridentifyingtheprincipalcategoriesofCaliforniamental  j healthcommitments(andappeals).Itisnotintendedasacomprehensivediscussion j  ofthetypesofappellateissuesthosecasescommonlypresent.j (#(# 0  Thegreatmajorityofmentalhealthappealsarisefrominvoluntarymentalhospital j  commitments(orextensionsofcommitments)underthreedistinctregimens!not j  guiltybyreasonofinsanity(_NGI_),theMentallyDisorderedOffender(MDO)law,and j theSexuallyViolentPredators(_SVP_)Act.Allofthesearenominally civil j commitmentregimens,whichnonethelessspringoutofthecriminaljusticesystem. j Ѐ(And,inmostcounties,thesecommitment/extensioncasesretainthesamesuperior j courtdocketnumberastheoriginalcriminalcase.)j(#(# 0  Althoughthepreciserequirementsvaryfromthestatutetostatute,undereachofthese j laws,theshowingrequiredforacommitment(orextensionofacommitment)consists j oftwoprimarycomponents:amentalillnessordisorderandcurrentdangerousness.j(#(# 0  Undereachofthesecommitmentregimens,thedefendantreceivesmany,thoughnot j all,ofthecoreproceduralrightsassociatedwithcriminaltrials!includingtheright j tojurytrial,aunanimousverdict,proofbeyondareasonabledoubt,andrepresentation j bycounsel(includingappointmentofcounsel,bothattrialandonappeal,for  j indigents).The playersaregenerallythesame.Undereachregimen,itisthe !j DistrictAttorneysofficewhichfilesandprosecutesthecommitmentorextension "j petition,anddefensecounselisgenerallyappointedviatheidenticalsystemasfor #j criminaldefendants.Administratively,mostcourts(bothsuperiorcourtsand $j appellatecourts)process_NGI_,MDO,and_SVP_Ԁcasesonthe criminalside(rather %j  thanonthe civilsideaswithLPS_conservatorships_).Thus,inmentalhealth &j!! appeals,appellatedefensecounselusethesamefamiliartoolsasinconventional 'j"" criminalappealsincompletingandaugmentingtheappellaterecord,obtaining (j## extensions,etc.)j$$(#(# 0  Buttherearealsocrucialsubstantivedistinctions.Duetothenominallycivil +j&& characterofaninvoluntarymentalhospitalization,thereisnoFifthAmendment ,j'' privilegenottotakethestand.(See,e.g.,Peoplev.Leonard(2005)128_Cal.App_.4th -j(( 794.)Indeed,theprosecutorisallowedtocallthedefendanttothestandduringthe  prosecutionscaseinchief.󀀀However,justlikeawitnessinanyproceeding,civilor  criminal,adefendantretainstherighttoasserttheFifthAmendmentprivilegeasto  anylinesofquestionswhichcouldpotentiallyincriminatehim.Hecannotrefuseto  testifyabouthisunderlyingoffense,because,duetothe_NGI_Ԁverdictor(for_SVP_s  andMDOs)theconviction,heisnolongersubjecttoanyfutureprosecutionforthat   crime.Buthecanrefusetotestifyastoany_unadjudicated_Ԁmatterwhichisorcould   bethesubjectofaprosecution!e.g.,anallegationthatheassaultedsomeonewhile   inthehospital. (#(# 0  Undereachregimen,thetrialoftenconsistsofaduelbetweenpsychologicaland   psychiatricexperts.Additionally,thoseaccustomedtoconventionalcriminaltrials   willbeshockedatthevolumeofhearsayinformationcommunicatedtothejurors!   usuallyundertheguiseofexplainingthebasesfortheexpertsopinions.(_Evid_.Code   X@X/#/XX@#Ԁ801(b),802.)TheSixthAmendmentconfrontationclause(likethefullFifth  Amendmentselfincriminationprivilege)islimitedtocriminaltrials.However,a  watereddownversionofconfrontationappliesinmentalcommitmenttrials,viathe  dueprocessclause.(Cf.Peoplev.Otto(2001)26Cal.4th200,209215.)  Nonetheless,asreflectedintheOttoopinion(discussedfurtherinthecontextof  _SVP_),thisdueprocessanalysispermitsadmissionofhearsaywhichwouldplainlyfail  musterundertheconfrontationclause.(E.g.,Peoplev._Angulo_(2005)129  _Cal.App_.4th1349[Crawfordv.Washingtonnotapplicabletocivilcommitment  trials].)(#(#  I.0  _NGI_ (#(#   A.0 ` Background:_NGI_ԀAdjudicationsandMaximumTermofCommitment ` (#` (# 0  Most_NGI_Ԅrelatedappealsdonotinvolvereviewofacriminaltrialinwhichthejury   rejectedaninsanitydefenseandreturnedaverdictofconviction.Infact(and ! contrarytopopularopinion),fullblowntrialsinvolvinganinsanitydefensearerare " (andtheinsanitydefenseisrarelysuccessfulinthosefewcontestedcasesthatdogo # totrial).Inmost_NGI_Ԁcases,thereisnodisputeastodefendantsinsanityatthetime $  oftheoriginaladjudication.Instead,_NGI_Ԁappealsusuallyarisefromeitherextension % ! orrestorationproceedingsmanyyearsaftertheoriginal_NGI_Ԁfinding.&!"(#(# 0  Inthetypical_NGI_Ԁcase,the_NGI_Ԁpleaactuallyoperatesasadefactoguiltypleaasto (#$ everythingexceptthesanityquestion.Thatis,unlessthedefendantseparatelyasserts )$% anotguiltyplea,his_NGI_Ԁpleaoperatesasanadmissionofalltheelementsofthe *%& chargedoffense,butitnegateshiscriminalculpabilityandprecludesaprisonsentence +&'  OY      orothercriminalpunishment.(Cf.Peoplev.Ferris(2005)130X@X/_Cal.App_.4th#/XX@*#Ԁ773,774.)(#(# 0  Whenadefendantentersan_NGI_Ԁplea,thetrialcourtisrequiredtoappointtwo  psychologistsorpsychiatriststoevaluatehimandsubmitwrittenreportstothecourt.  Ѐ(Pen.Code1027(a))Most_NGI_Ԁfindingsoccurincasesinwhichbothexamining  doctorsagreedthatthedefendantmetthetestfor_insanity.In_Ԁthatsituation,the   prosecutionandthedefensetypicallyagreetosubmitthesanityquestiontothecourt   onthebasisofthereports,andthecourtproceedstofindthedefendant_NGI_. (#(# 0  Whenadefendantisfound_NGI_Ԁ(byeitherjuryverdictorbythejudge),thecourtmust   referhimforanevaluationofasuitabledisposition(1026(c))!andthatdisposition   isalmostalwaysacommitmenttoastatementalhospital.Thecourtisrequiredtoset   a maximumperiodofcommitment!equaltothegreatestsentencethedefendant   couldlegallyreceiveifconvictedonallcountsandenhancements.(1026.5(a).) (#(# 0  B.0` (#(#_NGI_ԀExtensions (Pen.Code1026.5(b) )` (#` (# 0  Most_NGI_Ԅrelatedappealsinvolveextensionsbeyondtheoriginalmaximumperiod  ofcommitment.Thatis,whenthedefendantisabouttocompletetheoriginally  pronounced maximumperiodofcommitment,thestatecanpetitiontoextendthe  hospitalcommitmentforanadditionaltwoyears.(Pen.Code1026.5(b).)Aswith  theothercommitmentregimensdiscussedhere(MDO&_SVP_),theextensionpetition  isfiledinthesuperiorcourtfromwhichtheunderlyingcriminalcaseand_NGI_  adjudicationoriginated,notinthecountyinwhichthedefendantiscurrently  institutionalized.(#(# 0  Duringan_NGI_Ԁextensiontrial,thedefendanthasthesamepanoplyofrightsdiscussed  earlier!jurytrial,unanimousverdict,proofbeyondareasonabledoubt,rightto  counsel,etc.Theprosecutionmustprove:(1)thatthedefendanthas amental   disease,defect,ordisorder;and(2)that,becauseofthatmentalcondition,he !  presentsasubstantialdangerofphysicalharmtoothers.(1026.5(b)(1).)Ifthe " jurysustainsthepetition,thedefendantsmaximumperiodofconfinementisextended # foranadditionaltwoyears.Thatis,thetwoyearextensionperiodrunsfromthedate $  thepreviouscommitment(orextension)wassettoexpire,notfromthedatethe %!! currentextensiontrialconcludes.&""(#(# 0  Theprosecutioncanpetitionforsuccessivetwoyearextensions.Theprocedureis ($$ thesameasfortheinitialextensionpetition.Thatis,whentheinitialextensionis )%% abouttoexpire,thestatehospitalcansubmitareportrequestinganextension,the *&& DistrictAttorneycanfileanextensionpetition,andthedefendantisentitledtojury +'' trialandtheotherproceduralrightsdescribedabove.Consequently,asapractical  matter,regardlessofthelengthoftheoriginallypronounced maximumperiodof  commitment,any_NGI_Ԁpleacarriesthepossibilityofadefactolifecommitment,  because,aslongasthedefendantisperceivedasstilldangerous,thestatecanseekan  indefinitenumberoftwoyearextensions.(#(# 0  C.0` (#(#_NGI_ԀRestorationtoSanityPetitions(Pen.Code1026.2)  ` (#` (# 0  Thereisalsoaprocedureunderwhichan_NGI_Ԁdefendantcanpetitionforreleaseprior   totheexpirationofhismaximumperiodofcommitment(orpriortotheexpirationof    thecurrentextension).(Pen.Code1026.2.)Uponadefendantsfilingofa   restorationtosanitypetition,theDirectoroftheStateHospitalisrequiredtosubmit   areporttothecourtevaluatingthedefendantsprogressandsuitabilityforrelease.   (TherearealsoprovisionsunderwhichtheStateHospitalitselfcaninitiatesuch   proceedings,butthesematerialswillfocusonthecontestedcaseswhicharelikelyto   besubjectsoftrialsandlaterappeals.)(#(# 0  Section1026.2contemplatesatwostageprocedureinwhichadefendantcanbe  releasedfromthe_NGI_Ԁregimen!releasefromtheStateHospitaltooutpatient  supervision;and(followingayearormoreonoutpatientstatus)releasefrom  outpatientsupervision.(#(# 0  TrialonReleasetoOutpatientStatus.󀀀Thereisnorighttojurytrialduringthisfirst  phaseoftherestorationtosanityprocess.(Peoplev.Tilbury(1991)54Cal.3d56.)  Instead,whenastillhospitalized_NGI_Ԁdefendantfilesapetition,thecourtisrequired  toconducta hearing(nota trial)onhissuitabilityforreleasetooutpatientstatus.  Ѐ(Peoplev._Soiu_(2003)106_Cal.App_.4th1191.)Aswithan_NGI_Ԁextensiontrial,the  defendantisentitledtoappointmentofcounsel.However,incontrasttoanextension  trial,itisthedefendant,asthepetitioner,whobearstheburdenofproofbya   preponderanceoftheevidence.(1026.2(k).)Hisburdenistoestablishthathe ! wouldnotbe adangertothehealthandsafetyofothers,duetomentaldefect, " disease,ordisorder,ifundercommunitysupervisionandtreatment.(1026.2(e).) # Aswithanextensionofacommitmentundersection1026.5(b),anadverseverdictin $  asection1026.2restorationtosanitytrialisappealable.% !(#(# 0  ReleasefromOutpatientSupervision.Adefendantwhoisgrantedoutpatientstatus '"# isreleasedintothecommunityunderthesupervisionofthecountyconditionalrelease (#$ program(_CONREP_).Itisonlyafteradefendanthasbeenonoutpatientstatusforat )$% leastoneyearthatheisentitledtoatrialonhisrestorationtosanityandsuitabilityfor *%& completereleasefromthe_NGI_Ԁregimen.Duringthissecondphase,thedefendant +&' doeshavearighttojurytrialonhisrestorationtosanity.(Barnesv.SuperiorCourt  (1986)186_Cal.App_.3d969.)Thequestionforthejuryiswhetherthedefendantis   nolongeradangertothehealthandsafetyofothers,duetoamentaldefect,disease,  ordisorder.(1026.2(e).)Inotherrespects,theprocedureissimilartothatona  petitionforoutpatientrelease,withthedefendantbearingtheburdenofproofbya  preponderance. (#(# 0  D.0` (#(#CommonIssuesin_NGI_ԀExtensionandRestorationtoSanityAppeals  ` (#` (#   (Ey3" 3"  0   3M2E3  0` (#(#  Computationofmaximumperiodofcommitment.Althoughthetrialcourtis    requiredtoseta maximumperiodofcommitmentequaltothegreatest   prisonsentencethedefendantcouldhavereceivedforconvictionsonall   counts,thelimitationsonsuchsentences,suchasPen.Code654,limitations   onsubordinateconsecutiveterms,etc,applyequallytocalculationof   maximumperiodofcommitment.(SeePeoplev.Hernandez(2005)134   _Cal.App_.4th1232.)(Note:AlthoughHernandezwasanappealfromthe  original_NGI_Ԁcommitment,section654andsimilar unauthorizedsentence  issuesshouldalsobecognizable,viaahabeaspetition,atthetimeof  subsequentrestorationtosanityorextensionpetitions.Becausean   unauthorizeddispositionsuchasthisis inexcessofjurisdiction,itis  subjecttocorrectionatanytime,despitethefailuretoraiseitonappealfrom  theoriginalcommitmentorder.) 3M>M݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3R2E3  0` (#(#  Sufficiencyofconsequenceadvisementsonoriginal_NGI_Ԁplea.Intakingan  _NGI_Ԁplea,thecourtisrequiredtoadvisethedefendantofthepossibilityof  successiveextensionsbeyondtheinitial maximumperiodofcommitment.  (Peoplev._Lomboy_(1981)116_Cal.App_.3d67.)Thistooisapotentialhabeas  issue,ifcounseldiscoverstheissueinthecourseofa1026.2or1026.5appeal.  However,lachestypeprinciplesapplyto_Lomboy_claims,andthedefendant   mustraisetheissuepromptlyupondiscovery.(Compare,e.g.,Peoplev. ! SuperiorCourt(Wagner)(1989)210_Cal.App_.3d1146(barringchallengeto " defective_NGI_Ԁpleabasedonunjustifieddelayinbringingclaim);withInre # Robinson(1990)216_Cal.App_.3d1510(findingdefendantadequately $  explainedfailuretobringclaimearlier).) 3RR݌% !` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3X2E3  0` (#(#  Evidenceandinstructionsredefendantswillingnesstotakemedication,if '"# released.Thedefenseisentitledtopresentevidenceontheeffectof (#$ medicationincontrollingadefendantsdangerousnessandonhiswillingness )$% totakethemedicationshimself,eveninanunsupervisedenvironment. *%& However,thisiscomparabletoanaffirmativedefensetoan_NGI_Ԁextension +&' petition,andthedefensebearstheburdenonthatissue,byapreponderanceof  evidence.Thedefenseisalsoentitledtoinstructionsonthematerialityof  medicationincontrollingdangerousnessandthedefendantswillingnessto  selfmedicate.(Peoplev._Bolden_(1990)217_Cal.App_.3d1591.) 3XX݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3 ]2E3  0` (#(#  Existenceandnatureofmentalillness.󀀀Dueprocessprohibitscontinued   commitmentofan_NGI_Ԁ_acquittee_Ԁbasedadangerousnessalone;acurrent   mentalillnessordiseaseisrequiredforcommitment.(_Foucha_Ԁv.Louisiana   (1992)504U.S.71.)However,subsequentCaliforniacaseshaveheldthat   whetheraparticulardiagnosisqualifiesasamentalillnessisaquestionoffact,   notlaw,and(contrarytodefenseinterpretationsof_Foucha_)thosecaseshave   allowedcommitmentsbasedon antisocialpersonalitydisorder.(Peoplev.   SuperiorCourt(_Blakely_)(1997)60_Cal.App_.4th202.) 3 ]D]݌ ` (#` (# Ќ   II.0  MENTALLYDISORDEREDOFFENDER(MDO)COMMITMENTS(Pen.  Code2960etseq.) (#(# 0  TheMentallyDisorderedOffender(MDO)program,Pen.Code2960etseq.,is  probablytheleastwellknownofthethreecommitmentregimensdiscussedhere.In  someways,theMDOregimen,enactedin1986,wasaprecursoroftheSexually  ViolentPredatorAct(enactedin1995).An_NGI_Ԁ_acquittee_Ԁneversustainsacriminal  convictionandsentence.Instead,the_NGI_Ԁfindingabsolveshimofcriminal  culpabilityforhisoffensesandeffectivelydivertshimintoahospitalcommitment,  inlieuofaprisonsentence.However,likethelaterenacted_SVP_Ԁprogram,MDOis  apostprisoncivilcommitment.Thedefendantisconvictedofoneormoreofthe  violentoffenseslistedinthestatute(2962(e)))andreceivesaconventional  determinateprisonsentence.Itisonlywhenthedefendantisabouttocompletehis  prisonterm,thattheMDOregimencomesintoplay.(#(# 0  Asdiscussedbelow,uponanadministrativedeterminationthatthedefendantmeets ! theMDOcriteria,thedefendantisparoledintotheMDOprogram.Thatis,rather " thanreleasehimoutright,CDCessentiallyparolestheprisonerintothesupervision # oftheStateHospital,andthedefendantremainsunderahospitalcommitment $  throughouthisparoleperiod.Whenthedefendantisduetobereleasedfromparole, % ! thestatecanpetitiontoextendhisMDOcommitmentforanadditionalyear.And,as &!" with_NGI_Ԁand_SVP_Ԁextensions,thestatecanfilesuccessivepetitionsforfurthersuch '"# extensions,raisingtheprospectthat,despitehiscompletionofadeterminateprison (#$ sentence,thedefendantmayultimatelybehospitalizedforlife.(Note,however,that, )$% incontrasttothetwoyearextensionsof_NGI_Ԁand_SVP_Ԁcommitments,MDO *%& extensionsareforoneyeareach.)+&'(#(# Ї A.0  Keydefinitions. (#(# 0  Comparedwiththe_NGI_Ԁand_SVP_Ԁlaws,theMDOlawhasmorespecificdefinitions  ofaqualifyingmentaldisorderandalsooftheconceptof remission:(#(# 0  Thetermseverementaldisordermeansanillnessordiseaseorconditionthat   substantiallyimpairstheperson'sthought,perceptionofreality,emotionalprocess,   orjudgment;orwhichgrosslyimpairsbehavior;orthatdemonstratesevidenceofan   acutebrainsyndromeforwhichpromptremission,intheabsenceoftreatment,is   unlikely.Thetermseverementaldisorderasusedinthissectiondoesnotinclude    apersonalityoradjustmentdisorder,epilepsy,mentalretardationorother   developmentaldisabilities,oraddictiontoorabuseofintoxicatingsubstances.(   2962(a),emphasisadded.)     Thetermremissionmeansafindingthattheovertsignsandsymptomsofthe   severementaldisorderarecontrolledeitherby_psychotropic_Ԁmedicationor  _psychosocial_Ԁsupport.Apersoncannotbekeptinremissionwithouttreatmentif  duringtheyearpriortothequestionbeingbeforetheBoardofPrisonTermsoratrial  court,heorshehasbeeninremissionandheorshehasbeenphysicallyviolent,  exceptinselfdefense,orheorshehasmadeaseriousthreatofsubstantialphysical  harmuponthepersonofanothersoastocausethetargetofthethreattoreasonably  fearforhisorhersafetyorthesafety% W %Ws //ofhisorherimmediatefamily,orheorshehas  intentionallycausedpropertydamage,orheorshehasnotvoluntarilyfollowedthe  treatmentplan.Indeterminingifapersonhasvoluntarilyfollowedthetreatmentplan,  thestandardshallbewhetherthepersonhasactedasareasonablepersonwouldin  followingthetreatmentplan.(#/ /s#2962(a)emphasisadded.)(#(#  B.0  ParoleintotheMDORegimenandSection2966Trials. (#(# 0  ThecriteriaforMDOtreatmentare:(1)theprisonerhasa severementaldisorder ! thatisnotinremissionorcannotbekeptinremissionwithouttreatment(2962(a)); " (2)theseverementaldisorderwasacauseoraggravatingfactorinthecommission # ofhisoriginalconvictionoffense(2962(b));(3)theconvictionwasforoneofthe $  violentoffensesdesignatedinsection2962(e),andthedefendantreceivedan % ! determinateprisonterm;(4)theprisonerhasbeenintreatmentforthedisorderfor90 &!" daysormorewithintheyearimmediatelyprecedinghisparoleorrelease(2962(c)); '"# and(5)psychologistsorpsychiatristsoftheDepartmentofCorrections(CDC)and (#$ DepartmentofMentalHealth(_DMH_)certifythat,becauseoftheseveremental )$% disorder,theprisonerposesasubstantialdangerofphysicalharmifreleased.*%&(#(#  +&' 0  TheinitialMDOdeterminationisanadministrativeprocess,involvingbothCDCand  _DMH_,priortothedefendantsscheduledreleaseonparole.Ifthepsychiatristsor  psychologistsdeterminethattheprisonermeetsallthecommitmentcriteria,the  prisonerwillberequiredtoundergoMDOtreatmentinastatehospitalasacondition  ofparole.Inotherwords,ratherthanbeingreleasedintothecommunity,the  defendantwillbe paroledintoastatehospitalcommitment,andhewillordinarily   servehisentireparoleperiodinthehospital. (#(# 0  TheprisonermaychallengetheMDOdeterminationbothadministrativelyand   judicially.First,thedefendantmayrequestahearingbeforetheBoardofPrison   TermsonwhetherhemeetstheMDOcriteria.Intheeventofanadverse   determination,theprisonermayrequestasuperiorcourtjurytrialonthesameissue,   undersection2966.Ineffect,section2966givesadefendantaright,uponrequest,   toadenovojudicialreviewoftheadministrativedeterminationthatheisanMDO.   Althoughitisthedefendantwhorequeststhetrialand thehearingshallbeacivil  hearing,theprosecutionbearstheburdenofproofbeyondareasonabledoubt,and  thedefendantisentitledtoajurytrialandaunanimousverdict.(2966(b).)(#(# 0  Note,however,thatthedeterminationtorequireanMDOcommitmentasacondition  ofparolebecomesthesubjectofasuperiorcourttrialonlyifthedefendant  affirmativelyrequestsit.(Incontrast,extensionsofMDOcommitments,asdescribed  below,requiretheprosecutiontofileasuperiorcourtpetition,onwhichthedefendant  similarlyhastherighttojurytrial.)(#(# 0  Anotherkeydifferencebetweensection2966trialsontheinitialdecisiontoparole  aprisonerintotheMDOregimenandsection2972trialsonextensionsofMDO  commitments(discussedbelow)isthatasection2966trialisretrospectiveand  focusesstrictlyonthedefendantsconditionatthetimeoftheadministrative  determination. Evidenceofferedforthepurposeofpro_ving_Ԁtheprisonersbehavior   ormentalstatussubsequenttotheBoardofPrisonTermshearingshallnotbe ! considered.(2966(b).)"(#(#  C. 0  ExtensionsofMDOCommitmentandSection2972Trials. $ (#(# 0  WhenanMDOdefendantsparoleperiodisabouttoexpire,_DMH_Ԁmayaskthe &"" prosecutiontopetitionforanextensionoftheMDOcommitment.The_DMH_Ԁreport '## issupposedtobesubmitted180dayspriortothescheduledexpirationofparoleor ($$ releasefromprison.(2970.)Thedistrictattorney(inthecountyoftheoriginal )%% conviction)maythenfileapetitionseekingaoneyearextensionoftheMDO *&& commitment.Aswithan_NGI_Ԁextension,anMDOproceedingisajurytrial,andthe +'' prosecutionbearstheburdenofproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thestatute  providesthatthetrialistobeginnolaterthan30daysbeforethescheduledrelease  date.(2972(a))(#(# 0  IncontrasttotheprovisionsconcerningMDOparole!whichplacetheonusonthe  defendanttorequestatrial!itistheprosecutionwhichmustpetitiontoextendMDO   treatmentbeyondtheexpirationofparoleortoobtainlatercommitmentextensions.   Inourexperience,mostMDOappealshavebeenfromextensiontrials(under2972),   ratherthantrialsontheinitialadministrativedeterminationofMDOstatusatthetime   ofparole(under2966). (#(#  D.   CommonMDOIssues:      (Eyy " 3"     3֍2E3  0 `   Qualifyingoffense.Whethertheoriginalconvictionwasforanoffense   qualifyingundertheMDOstatute(2962(e)),includingwhetheritfallsinto   the catchallprovisionsforanyoffense inwhichtheprisonerusedforceor  violence,orcausedseriousbodilyinjury...(2962(e)(2)(P))or expresslyor  impliedlythreatenedanotherpersonwiththeuseofforceorviolencelikelyto  producesubstantialphysicalharminsuchamannerthatareasonableperson  wouldbelieveandexpectthattheforceorviolencewouldbeused(  2962(e)(2)(Q)).SeePeoplev._Anzalone_(1999)19Cal.4th1074.) 3֍݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"     3đ2E3  0 `   Severementaldisorder.2962(a);see,e.g.,Peoplev.Starr(2003)106  _Cal.App_.4th1202(findingthat_pedophilia_Ԁqualifiesasa severemental  disorderforMDOpurposes). 3đ݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"     32E3  0 `   Remission.Adequacyofevidencethatdefendantisnotinremissionorcannot  bekeptinremissionwithouttreatment,includingwhetherthedefendant  voluntarilyfailedtofollowtreatmentplan.(2962(a);see,e.g.,Peoplev.   _Beeson_(2002)99_Cal.App_.4th1393.) 3݌!` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"     32E3  0 `   Burdenofproofrecontrolofdangerousnesswithmedication.Incontrastto # _NGI_Ԁextensiontrials,wherecontrolthroughmedicationisdeemedan $  affirmativedefenseonwhichthedefendantbearsapreponderanceburdenof % ! proof,itiserrortoplacetheburdenofproofonthemedicationissueonthe &!" defendantinanMDOtrial.TheMDOdefinitionof remissionincorporates '"# theconceptthatthedefendantsdangerousnesswillbecontrolledthrough (#$ medication.(2962(a).)BecauseanMDOfindingrequiresproofthatthe )$% defendantisnotinremissionorcannotbekeptinremissionwithoutMDO *%& treatment,theprosecutionbearstheburdenofproving,beyondareasonable +&' doubt,that ifreleased,thedefendantwillnottakehisorherprescribed  medicationandinanunmedicatedstate,thedefendantpresentsasubstantial  dangerofphysicalharmtoothers.(Peoplev.Noble(2002)100_Cal.App_.4th  184,190.) 3@݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"     32E3  0 `   TreatmentduringperiodpriortoinitialMDOdetermination.Adequacyof   evidencethat theprisonerhasbeenintreatmentforthementaldisorderfor   90daysormorewithintheyearpriortotheprisonersparoleorrelease.(   2962(c);see,e.g.,Peoplev.DelValle(2002)100_Cal.App_.4th88;Peoplev.   _Sheek_(2004)122_Cal.App_.4th1606.) 3݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"     32E3  0 `   Violationofstatutory_timelines_.Ingeneral,the_timelines_Ԁspecifiedinthe   MDOlawhavebeendeemed directory,ratherthan mandatoryor    jurisdictional.(Peoplev.Williams(1999)77_Cal.App_.4th436.)Delaysin   bringinganMDOdefendanttotrialaregenerallyevaluatedunderadue  processtestbalancingthereasonsforthedelayagainsttheprejudicetothe  defendant,andsuchchallengeshaverarelybeensuccessful.(Cf.Peoplev.  Kirkland(1994)24_Cal.App_.4th891(nodueprocessviolationwheretrial  commencedonly6daysbeforescheduledcommitmentexpirationdate(rather  than30asprovidedinstatute),butconcludedbeforetheexpiration).)  However,Zacharyv.SuperiorCourt(1997)57_Cal.App_.4th1026,foundadue  processviolationwheretheextensionpetitionwasnotevenfileduntilthree  weeksaftertheexpirationofthepriorMDOcommitment. 3݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"     32E3  0 `   Jurywaivers.Inmarkedcontrasttocriminaltrials,thereisnorequirement  thatanyjurywaiverbeenteredpersonally.(Peoplev._Montoya_(2001)86  _Cal.App_.4th825.)BecauseanMDOtrialis civilandtherighttoajurytrial  isstatutoryratherthanconstitutional,defensecounselmaywaiveajury.  Indeed,onecaseevenallowscounseltowaiveajuryoverthedefendants   objection.(Peoplev.Otis(1999)70_Cal.App_.4th1174.) 3݌!` (#` (# Ќ  III.SEXUALLYVIOLENTPREDATOR(_SVP_)ACT(_Welf_.&Inst.Code6600et # Seq.)  $  0  LikeMDO,_SVP_Ԁisapostprisoncommitmentre_gimen_,ratherthanonewhichdiverts &!" thedefendantfromcriminalpunishment_altogther_,likean_NGI_Ԁfinding.Also,like '"# MDO,theprocessbeginswith_DMH_Ԁpsychologicalevaluations,certifyingthatthe (#$ defendantmeetsthestatutorycriteriaforcommitment.Aswithotherregimens,there )$% isarighttojurytrialonan_SVP_Ԁpetition,andtheprosecutionbearstheburdenof *%& proofbeyondareasonabledoubt.An_SVP_Ԁcommitmentisfortwoyears(likean_NGI_ +&' extension),andtheprosecutionmayseeksuccessivetwoyearextensionsofthat  commitment.(#(# 0  A.0` (#(#KeyDefinitions ` (#` (# 0  ThemostnoteworthydifferencebetweenMDOand_SVP_Ԁliesinthebreadthand   flexibilityof_SVP_sdefinitionofaqualifyingmentaldisorder: (#(# " 3"  0   3 2E3  0` (#(#  Commitmentstandard:  //Sexuallyviolentpredatormeansapersonwhohas   beenconvictedofasexuallyviolentoffenseagainsttwoormorevictimsand    whohasadiagnosedmentaldisorderthatmakesthepersonadangertothe   healthandsafetyofothersinthatitislikelythatheorshewillengagein   sexuallyviolentcriminalbehavior.(_Welf_.&Inst.Code#/ /ʮ# //Ԁ6600(a)(1),   emphasisadded.) 3 Y݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3~2E3  0` (#(#  Qualifyingdisorder: #/ /# //Diagnosedmentaldisorderincludesacongenitalor  acquiredconditionaffectingtheemotionalorvolitionalcapacitythat  predisposesthepersontothecommissionofcriminalsexualactsinadegree  constitutingthepersonamenacetothehealthandsafetyofothers.#/ /K# //(Id.#/ /#X@X/#/XX@6# //  6600(c),emphasisadded.) 3~݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3 "  0   3 2E3  0` (#(#  Predicateoffenses:Asreflectedinthedefinitionabove,an_SVP_Ԁcommitment  requiresconvictionsof sexuallyviolentoffensesagainst twoormore  victims.Theconvictionsneednothaveoccurredinthesameproceeding,and  aprisonerwiththerequisitetwopriorconvictionsmaybeeligiblefor_SVP_  commitmenteventhoughhiscurrentabouttoexpireprisontermwasfora  nonqualifyingoffense. Sexuallyviolentoffenseincludesaconvictionof  anyofthemajorsexualassaultoffenses(rape,oralcopulation,sodomy,  foreignobjectpenetration) w#/ /|# //hencommittedbyforce,violence,duress,   menace,orfearofimmediateandunlawfulbodilyinjuryonthevictimor ! anotherperson.(Id.#/ /ϸ# //Ԁ6600(b).)#/ /Ϲ# // 3 F݌"` (#` (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#However,anyoffenseagainstavictimundertheageof14qualifiesasa $   sexuallyviolentoffenseifitinvolved substantialsexualconduct,id,#/ /# // % ! 6600.1(a),whichisdefinedas penetrationofthevaginaortherectumof &!" eitherthevictimortheoffenderbythepenisoftheotherorbyanyforeign '"# object,oralcopulation,ormasturbationofeitherthevictimortheoffender. (#$ #/ /# //(Id.#/ /# //Ԁ6600.1(b).))$%` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Inthecaseofoffensesagainstadultvictims,theelementsofthestatuteof +&' convictionusuallyestablishwhetherthecrimeinvolvedforce,violenceor  duress,qualifyingitasasexuallyviolentoffenseundersection6600(b).  Consequently,asapracticalmatter,issuesregardingthepredicateoffense  mostcommonlyariseinconnectionwithpriorconvictionsfornonforcible  lewdactsagainstminors#/ /V#(Pen.Code //Ԁ288(a));inthosecases,itisnecessary  toestablishthattheunderlyingconductinvolved substantialsexualconduct   underthe_SVP_Ԁdefinition. ` (#` (# " 3 "  0   3 2E3  0` (#(#  Natureofprior conviction.Anoffenseinanotherjurisdictionwhich   includesalloftheelementsofa sexuallyviolentoffensequalifiesasa    conviction.Asexualoffenseswhichresultedinan_NGI_Ԁadjudicationorin   acommitmentunderthenowdefunctMentallyDisorderedSexOffender   (_MDSO_)programalsoqualifiesasa conviction.(_Welf_.&Inst.Code.#/ /# //   6600(a)(2).)#/ /# //ԀOneofthetwo#/ /V# //Ԁrequiredpredicatesexualoffensesmaybea   juvenileadjudicationwhichresultedina_CYA_Ԁcommitmentforaminor16  yearsorolder,butamorelimiteddefinitionof asexuallyviolentoffense  applies.(Id.#/ /#X@X/#/XX@0# //Ԁ6600(g).)However,althoughthe_SVP_Ԁlawallowsseveraltypes  ofprioradjudicationsnotresultinginaprisonsentencetoserveasprior  predicateoffenses,thedefendantmustbeinthecustodyofCDCnearingthe  completionofaprisontermoraparolerevocationterminorderforthestate  toinitiatethe_SVP_Ԁprocess.(Id.#/ /v#X@X/#/XX@# //Ԁ6601(a)(1).)However,theexpiringprison  termneednotbeforasexualoffense;itissufficientthatthedefendantisa  currentprisoninmateandhastwoqualifyingpriorsexualoffense. 3 C݌` (#` (# Ќ  0   (#(#  0  B.0` (#(#The_SVP_ԀProcess ` (#` (# #/ /#0  Administrativescreeningandevaluation.LikeMDOcommitments,the_SVP_Ԁprocess  beginswithadministrativescreeningandevaluationspriortotheexpirationofthe  defendantsprisonterm.Twopsychologistsand/orpsychiatristsdesignatedbythe   DepartmentofMentalHealthevaluatewhethertheprisonersatisfiesthecriteriafor ! _SVP_Ԁcommitment.Ifthetwo_DMH_Ԅdesignatedevaluatorsagreethedefendantisan " _SVP_,_DMH_Ԁwillreferthecasetothedistrictattorneyforfilingofan_SVP_Ԁcommitment # petition.Ifthetwoevaluatorsdisagree,thereisaprocedureforthe_DMH_Ԁdirectorto $  referthemattertotwoindependentevaluators.Inthatinstance,areferralforfiling % ! apetitioncanoccuronlyifthetwoindependentevaluatorsconcurthatthedefendant &!" isan_SVP_. //(_Welf_.&Inst.Code.#/ /#6601.)'"#(#(# 0  Filingof_SVP_Ԁpetition/probablecausehearing.Any_SVP_Ԁcommitmentbeyondthe )$% expirationofadefendantsprisontermrequirestheprosecutiontofilean_SVP_ *%& petitioninsuperiorcourt.(Inthisrespect,the_SVP_Ԁregimenrequiresajudicialprocess +&' atanearlierstagethanMDO,wheretheinitialdecisiontoparolethedefendantinto  ahospitalcommitmentisessentiallyanadministrativedetermination,anditisupto  defendanttoseekjudicialreview.)(#(# 0  Incontrasttotheothercommitmentprocesses,the_SVP_Ԁframeworkalsoincludesa  pretrialjudicialscreeningprocedurewhichfulfillsasimilarfunctionasapreliminary   hearinginacriminalcase.Thecourtisrequiredtoconducta probablecause   hearingonan_SVP_Ԁpetition.(_Welf_.&Inst.Code6602(a).)The probablecause   hearingisnotamere paperreviewbutafullevidentiaryhearing.(InreParker   (1998)60_Cal.App_.4th1453.)However,errorsatthe probablecausehearingwill   rarelyprovidegroundsforaposttrialappealbecausethecourtshaveimportedinto   the_SVP_Ԁcontextthe_Pompa_ԄOrtizrulethatpreliminaryhearingerrorsarenot   reversibleunlessthedefendantcanshowthattheerroraffectedthefairnessofthe   latertrial.(Cf.Peoplev._Talhelm_(2000)85X@X/_Cal.App_.4th#/XX@>#Ԁ400,405.) (#(# 0  Trial.Liketheothercommitmentregimensdiscussedhere,the_SVP_Ԁprocessis  nominallycivil,butincludesmany(thoughcertainlynotall)oftheattributesofa  criminaltrial,includingtherighttojurytrial,aunanimousverdict,appointmentof  counsel,andproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.(#(#  0  C.  ` Leading_SVP_ԀAuthorities:(#(#   Overallconstitutionality:  " 3 "     3L2E3  0 `   Kansasv._Hendricks_(1997)521U.S.346.Upheldbasicconstitutionalityof   sexualpredatorstatutesagainstexpostfactoanddueprocesschallenges. 3L݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3 "     32E3  0 `   _Hubbart_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt(1999)19Cal.4th1138.TheCaliforniaSupreme  CourtrejectedasserteddistinctionsbetweenCalifornias_SVP_Ԁstatutesandthe   Kansasregimenaddressedin_Hendricks_.ItupheldCalifornias_SVP_Ԁlaw ! againstsimilarexpostfactoanddueprocessclaimsandalsorejectedparallel " stateconstitutionalchallenges. 3 ݌#` (#` (# Ќ  0   Volitionalimpairment:󀀀% !(#(# " 3 "  0   342E3  0` (#(#  Kansasv.Crane(2002)534U.S.407.TheU.S.SupremeCourthasrejected '"# theassertionthatasexualpredatorcommitmentrequiresafindingthatthe (#$ defendantcompletelylackscontroloverhiscriminalbehavior.However,in )$% anapparentglosson_Hendricks_,theCranemajoritystatedthattheremustbe *%& proofof seriousdifficultyincontrollingbehavior. 34m݌+&'` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   32E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Williams(2003)31Cal.4th757.ButtheCaliforniaSupremeCourt  laterrejectedaclaimthatjuryinstructionsmustexplicitlyrequireafindingof  seriousdifficultyincontrollingbehavior. [A]commitmentrenderedunder  theplainlanguageofthe_SVPA_Ԁnecessarilyencompassesadeterminationof  seriousdifficultyincontrollingonescriminalsexualviolence,asrequiredby   Kansasv.Crane[citation].Accordingly,separateinstructionsorfindingson   thatissuearenotconstitutionallyrequired[fn.]....(Id.atp.777.) 3#݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  0   (#(# 0   Predatory:󀀀The_SVP_Ԁstatutesprovideauniquedefinitionof predatoryas anact   ...directedtowardastranger,apersonofcasualacquaintancewithwhomno   substantialrelationshipexists,oranindividualwithwhomarelationshiphasbeen   establishedorpromotedfortheprimarypurposeofvictimization.(_Welf_.&Inst.   Code6600(e).)Butthereinitiallywasuncertaintyregardinghowthe predatory   definitionfitintotheelementsrequiredforan_SVP_Ԁfinding:(#(# " 3"  0   32E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev.Torres(2001)25Cal.4th680.Itisnotnecessarytoestablishthat  theprior predicatesexualoffenseswere predatoryinnature. 3݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3%2E3  0` (#(#  Peoplev._Hurtado_(2002)25Cal.4th1179.Butitisnecessarytoestablish  thatthedefendantposesariskofcommitting predatorysexualoffensesin  thefuture.Thatis,theinstructionsmustrequirethejurytofindthatthe  defendantislikelytocommit predatorysexualoffensesifreleasedfrom  custody. 3%^݌` (#` (# Ќ  0   Likely:Peoplev._Roberge_(2003)29Cal.4th979.Thedefinitionof likelydoes  notrequireafindingof morelikelythannottoreoffend.Instead, likelyrequires  onlythatthedefendantpresents asubstantialdanger,thatis,aseriousandwell  foundedriskofcommittingsuchcrimesifreleasedfromcustody.Becausethe   meaningof likelyinthe_SVP_Ԁcontextisnotplainorunambiguous,thetrialcourt ! mustinstruct_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁonthisdefinition."(#(# 0  Predicatesexualoffensesandhearsayissues.$ (#(# " 3"  0   312E3  0` (#(#  Withmostsexualassaultoffensesagainstadultvictims(e.g.,rape,forcible &"" oralcopulations,etc.),thestatutedefiningtheoffenseestablishesthatitwas '## committedwiththerequisite force,violence,duress,etc.toqualifyasa ($$  violentsexualoffense,undersection6600(b).However,anonforcible )%% offenseagainstsomeoneundertheageof14!i.e.,aPenalCodesection *&& 288(a)conviction!alsoqualifiesasapredicateoffenseifitinvolved +''  substantialsexualconduct,asdefinedinsection6600.1.(Cf.,e.g.,People  v._Chambless_(1999)74_Cal.App_.4th773(construing masturbationfor  purposesofwhetherprior288(a)offenseinvolved substantialsexual  conduct).) 31j݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   32E3  0` (#(#  UseofPenalCodesection288(a)convictionsaspredicatesexualoffenses   posesproblemsofproofcomparableto_Guerrero_typeissuesregarding   whethercertainpriorsqualifyfor strikesorotherenhancements.However,   the_SVP_Ԁlawincludesauniquehearsayexception: Theexistenceofanyprior   convictionsmaybeshownwithdocumentaryevidence.Thedetailsunderlying   thecommissionofanoffensethatledtoapriorconviction,includinga   predatoryrelationshipwiththevictim,maybeshownbydocumentary   evidence,including,butnotlimitedto,preliminaryhearingtranscripts,trial   transcripts,probationandsentencing% X %X //reports,andevaluationsbytheState   DepartmentofMentalHealth.(_Welf_.&Inst.Code#/ /# //Ԁ6600(a)(3),emphasis  added.) 3 ݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3P2E3  0` (#(#  In#/ /#Peoplev.Otto(2001)26Cal.4th200 //,theSupremeCourtconstruedsection  6600(a)(3)asallowingadmissionofmultiplelevelhearsay(e.g.,victims  statements)recountedinprobationreportsandotherdocumentsspecifiedin  thestatute.TheCourtalsorejectedaconstitutionalchallengetotheadmission  ofhearsayinthiscontext.Itconcludedthatvictimstatementsincludedin  probationreportspossesssufficientindiciaofreliabilitytosatisfydueprocess,  wherethedefendantwasconvictedofthesexualoffense(whetherbytrialor  plea). 3P݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3$2E3  0` (#(#  NotethatOttodoesnotresolveallpotentialhearsayissuesarisingfrom  documentaryevidenceconcerningallegedpriorsexualcrimes.First,Otto  involvedatypeofdocumentspecificallyenumeratedinsection6600(a)(3).   Admissionofdocumentsnotspecificallylistedcouldposemoredifficult ! issues.(Butsee#/ /'#Peoplev. //Ԁ_Angulo_(2005)129#/ /r#_Cal.App_.4th1349(allowing " admissionofpolicereportsasproofofdetailsofpredicateoffenses).)Second, # section6600(a)(3)appliesonlytodocumentaryevidenceofthedetailsofprior $  convictions.Ithasnoapplicationwheretheprosecutionseekstointroduce %!! hearsayregardingchargeswhichdidnotresultinconvictionofasexual &"" offense. 3$]݌'##` (#` (# Ќ  0  D. 0` (#(# OtherCommonIssuesin_SVP_ԀAppeals. )%%` (#` (# 0  ImproperProsecutorialUseofPrior_SVP_ԀFindings.󀀀Peoplev.SalomonMunoz(2005) +&' 129_Cal.App_.4th421.Inan_SVP_Ԁextensiontrial,itisimpropertoadmitevidenceof  theprior_SVP_Ԁadjudication(s),toarguethatthepriorjuryhasalreadymadethecrucial  determinations,ortosuggestthatthecurrentjurystaskissimplytodetermine   whetheranythinghaschangedsincethelastdetermination,suchthatthedefendant  isnolongeran_SVP_.(Id.atp.430.)Suchevidenceandargumentstendtoshiftthe  burdenofprooftothedefendantandtoundercuttheprosecutionsburdentoprove   beyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefendantscurrentconditionmeetsthecriteria   for_SVP_Ԁcommitment. [_E]ach_Ԁ_recommitment_Ԁrequires[theprosecution]   independentlyprovethatthedefendanthasacurrentlydiagnosedmentaldisorder   makinghimorheradanger.Thetaskisnotsimplytojudgechangesinthe   defendantsmentalstate.(Ibid.)TheSalomon_Muniz_holdingmeritsparticular   scrutinysincethisisoneofveryfewpublishedcaseswhichactuallyreversedan_SVP_   adjudication. (#(# 0  _Sua_Ԁ_Sponte_ԀInstructiononNecessityofCustodialTreatment:󀀀Peoplev._Grassini_  (2003)113_Cal.App_.4th765.TheSupremeCourthasobservedthat adetermination  ofthelikelihoodoffuturedangerousness...mustalsotakeintoaccountthepotential  _SVP_samenabilitytovoluntarytreatmentuponrelease.(Cooleyv.SuperiorCourt  (2002)29Cal.4th228,256,emphasisadded.)Accordingly,wherethereissubstantial  evidenceofsuchamenabilitytovoluntarytreatment,thetrialcourtmust instructthe  jurythatitistodeterminewhethercustodyinasecurefacilityisnecessarytoensure  thattheindividualisnotadangertothehealthandsafetyofothers.(_Grassini_,  supra,atp.777,emphasisadded.)(#(# 0  Delayinbringingdefendanttotrial.Inanumberofcases,therehavebeendelaysof  yearsinbringing_SVP_Ԁcasestotrial,sothatthetrialdoesnotoccuruntilwellinto,or  evenafter,thetwoyearperiodforwhichtheextensionisbeingsought.Unlikeother  commitmentregimens(e.g.,MDO),the_SVP_Ԁlawdoesnotincludeanyspecific  _timelines_Ԁ(even directoryones)forwhenthetrialmustoccurinrelationto   expirationoftheexistingcommitment.Frequentlynooneintheprocess,including ! defensecounsel,takesactiontoensureaspeedytrial.Severalopinionshavedecried " thesedelaysandhaveadmonishedjudges,prosecutors,anddefenseattorneystobring # _SVP_Ԁcasestotrialinatimelyfashion.However,todatenoneofthoseopinionshas $  foundanyjurisdictionalerrorordueprocessviolationinsuchdelays.(Cf._Orozco_Ԁv. %!! SuperiorCourt(2004)117_Cal.App_.4th170;_Litmon_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt(2004)123 &"" _Cal.App_.4th1156.)'##(#(#  IV.0  CROSSCUTTINGISSUESINMENTALCOMMITMENTAPPEALS. )%%(#(# 0  Althoughthepreciseelementsnecessaryforacommitmentandthecommitment +&' proceduresvaryfromregimentoregimen,therearesomebroadcategoriesofissues  whichfrequentlyariseinappealsfromallthreekindsofcommitments.(#(# 0   Civilvs. criminallabel.󀀀_NGI_,MDO,and_SVP_Ԁareallnominally civilrather  than penalcommitmentregimens,andthatcharacterizationisvitaltothecourts  rejectionofexpostfacto,doublejeopardy,andotherconstitutionalchallengesto   theseregimens.But,inseveralrespects,courtscontinuetolooktocriminallaw   principlesinsettingtheminimumstandardsfortheconductofcommitmenttrialsand   appeals. (#(# " 3"  0   3S2E3  0` (#(#  Righttocounsel.󀀀AlthoughtheSixthAmendmentrighttocounseldoesnot   applytoa civilcommitment,eachoftheseregimensprovidesastatutory   righttocounsel.Additionally,evenwithoutthosestatutes,federaldueprocess   principleswouldlikelyconferthisright.(UnitedStatesv._Buddell_(9thCir.   1999)187F.3d1137.)Thecourtshavegenerallyassumed(usuallywithlittle  discussion)thattraditionalcriminallawdoctrinesflowingfromtherightto  counselapplyequallytocommitmenttrials.(E.g.,Peoplev._Pretzer_(1992)9  _Cal.App_.4th1078,1086(ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel);Peoplev.Leonard  (2000)78_Cal.App_.4th776,784788(_Marsden_hearing);Leonard,supra,atp.  788(alsoassumingrighttoselfrepresentationin_SVP_Ԁtrial);butcompare  ConservatorshipofJoelE.(2005)132_Cal.App_.4th429(refusingtoapplyself  representationrighttoLPSconservatorshiptrial).) 3S݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3 2E3  0` (#(#  Chapmanharmlesserror.Becausethelibertyinterestatstakeincommitment  trialsiscomparabletothatinacriminaltrial,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthas  appliedtheChapman harmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtstandardin  assessingtheprejudicialeffectofinstructionalerrorsoncommitmentcriteria  andotherconstitutionalerrorsincommitmenttrials.(Peoplev._Hurtado_  (2002)28Cal.4th1179,11921194.) 3  ݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3#2E3  0` (#(#  Availabilityof_Wende_review?󀀀Untilrecently,appellatecourtshavegenerally " conducted_Wende_reviews,whenrequested,in_NGI_,MDO,and_SVP_Ԁappeals, # aswellasinappealsfromtruly civilcommitmentsunderthe_Lanterman_Ԅ $  _Petris_ԄShortAct.(ConservatorshipofMargaretL.(2001)89_Cal.App_.4th675 %!! [LPS].)However,severalrecentdecisionshavequestionedtheapplicability &"" ofthe_Wende_proceduretoanyoftheseregimens.TheCaliforniaSupreme '## CourthasgrantedreviewoftheissueinanLPScase(BenC.)andhasalso ($$  grantedandheldanMDOcaseonthesameissue.(ConservatorshipofBen )%% C.(2004)119_Cal.App_.4th119_Cal.App_.4th710,reviewgr.Sept.15,2004 *&& (S126664);seealsoPeoplev.Smith(2005)127_Cal.App_.4th896,reviewgr. +'' July13,2005(S133593)[MDO];cf.Peoplev.Torres(2005)133_Cal.App_.4th  1359[_SVP_],pet.forreviewpending.) 3#$݌` (#` (# Ќ  0  Excessivehearsayinconnectionwithexperttestimony.(#(# " 3"  0   3+2E3  0` (#(#  Revelationofotherexpertsopinions.Althoughanexpertmaydescribe   hearsaymaterialsonwhichhereliedinforminghisopinion,itiserrortoadmit   opinionsofnontestifyingexperts.(SeePeoplev.Campos(1995)32   _Cal.App_.4th304.) 3+S+݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3R-2E3  0` (#(#  Reliabilityofhearsaybasesofexperttestimony. Aqualifiedexpert...may   basethatopinion[astowhetherdefendantsatisfiesstatutorycommitment   criteria]oninformationthatisitselfinadmissiblehearsayiftheinformationis   reliableandofthetypereasonablyrelieduponbyexpertsonthesubject.   [Citation.]Atrialcourt,however,maynotadmitanexpertopinionbasedon  informationsuppliedbyothersthatisspeculative,conjecturalorotherwise  failstomeetathresholdrequirementofreliability.[Citations.](Peoplev.  Dodd(2005)133_Cal.App_.4th1564,1569,emphasisadded.) Anexpert  opinioncannotreasonablybebasedonnonspecificand_conclusory_Ԁhearsaythat  doesnotsetforthanyfactualdetailsofanactnecessaryfortheopinion.  [Citations.](Id.atp.1570.) 3R--݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"  0   3g22E3  0` (#(#  Interplaybetweenhearsayandsufficiencyissues.󀀀 Likeahousebuilton  sand,theexpertsopinionisnobetterthanthefactsonwhichitisbased.  [Citation.](Peoplev._Gardeley_(1996)14Cal.4th605,618.)InDodd,supra,  133_Cal.App_.4th1564,theprosecutionreliedon_pedophilia_Ԁasthe severe  mentaldisorderforanMDOcommitment.Aparolereportsvaguereference  toa reportedmolestationincident,whichhadneverbeenthesubjectofa  convictionoraparoleviolationadjudication,wasvitaltotheexperts   conclusionthatthedefendantshistorysatisfiedthediagnosticcriteriafor ! _pedophilia_.TheDoddcourtconcludedthattheparolereportcontainedsolittle " informationonthefactualbasisordetailsofthisreportedmolestationthatit # lackedsufficientreliabilitytosupporttheexpertsopinion.Without $  considerationofthatunsubstantiatedincident, therewasnosubstantial %!! evidencetosupportthefindingthat[Dodd]sufferedfrom_pedophilia_. &"" [Citation.](Id.atp.1569.) 3g22݌'##` (#` (# Ќ  0  Improperdiscussionofconsequencesofverdictorlengthofcommitmentterm.By )%% analogytotheprinciplebarringjurorsconsiderationofthelengthofaprison *&& sentenceintheeventofacriminalconviction,itisimpropertoinformjurorsofthe +'' preciseconsequencesoftheirverdictonamentalcommitmentpetition,i.e.,thata   truefindingwillresultafurthertwoyear(_NGI_Ԁ&_SVP_)oroneyear(MDO)hospital  commitmentanda nottruefindinginthedefendantsreleasefromcustody.(Cf.  Peoplev.Collins(1992)10_Cal.App_.4th690,695696.)(#(#  V.0  OTHERMENTALCOMMITMENTISSUES.  (#(# 0  AsnotedintheIntroduction,thegreatmajorityofmentalhealthappealsarefrom   commitmentsorextensionsofcommitmentsunderthe_NGI_,MDO,or_SVP_Ԁlaws.This   sectionwilljustbrieflynotesomeotherkindsofmentalhealthproceedingswhich    occasionallyresultinappealsrequiringtheappointmentofcounsel. (#(# 0  A.0` (#(#LPS_Conservatorships_  ` (#` (# 0  The_Lanterman_Ԅ_Petris_ԄShortAct(_Welf_.&Inst.Code5000etseq.)providesthe   frameworkfortrulycivilcommitments,whichdonothaveanythingtodowiththe  criminaljusticesystem.ThemostcommonLPSproceedingisaoneyear  conservatorshipbasedonthepatients gravedisability(id.X@X/#/XX@ A#Ԁ5350etseq.)!defined  asaninabilitytoprovideforonesbasicneedsoffood,shelter,andclothing //(id.#/ /A#X@X/#/XX@B#  5008(h)(1)(A)).Aproposed_conservatee_Ԁisentitledtoappointmentofcounsel,ajury  trial,aunanimousverdict,andproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Seegenerally  Conservatorshipof_Roulet_(1979)SX /23Cal.3d219#/ SXC#.)(#(# 0  B.0` (#(#CompetencyandInvoluntaryMedication .` (#` (# 0  PenalCodesection1368etseq.establishesthemechanismfordeterminingwhether  acriminaldefendantismentallycompetenttostandtrial.Whenadefendantisfound  incompetent,heiscommittedtoamentalhospitalpendingrestorationtocompetency.  InSellv.UnitedStates(2003)539U.S.166,theU.S.SupremeCourtaddressedthe   constitutionalstandardsunderwhichthestatemayadministerantipsychotic ! medications,againstthedefendantswill,forpurposesofrestoringhimto " competency.InresponsetoSell,theLegislaturerecentlyamendedPenalCodesection # 1370toincorporatetheSellcriteriaandtoauthorizeasuperiorcourthearingonanthe $  statesapplicationforinvoluntarymedication.Anorderauthorizinginvoluntary %!! medicationforcompetencyrestorationpurposesisappealable,andafewsuchappeals &"" arecurrentlypending.(See //ԀPeoplev.ODell(2005)126_Cal.App_.4th562#/ /H#.)'##(#(# 0  C.0` (#(#OtherInvoluntaryMedicationIssues. )%%` (#` (# 0  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasrecentlyconstruedtheCaliforniaConstitutionand +&' relatedstatutesconcerningtherightsofmentalpatientsasgivingadefendant  committedundertheMDOregimentherighttorefuseadministrationofanti  psychoticmedications,subjecttocertainlimitations.Innonemergencysituations,an  MDOcanberequiredtoundergoinvoluntarymedicationwithantipsychoticdrugs,  onlyifacourtdeterminesthatthedefendantismentallyincompetenttorefuse  medicationorthatheisadangertootherswithinthemeaningoftheLPSact(_Welf_.   &Inst.Code5300).(Inre_Qawi_(2004)32Cal.4th1.)(Notethatthisisamore   rigoroustestofdangerousnessthanrequiredforanMDOcommitmentandrequires   evidenceofviolenceorthreatswithintheprecedingyear.) (#(# 0  Although_Qawi_involvedanMDOpatient,itsrationaleappliesequallytothose   committedas_SVP_s.(InreCalhoun(2004)121_Cal.App_.4th1315.) (#(# /#/O#