Over two years ago, the Supreme Court limited evidence that could be considered at initial, probable cause hearings in proceedings to civilly commit offenders under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. The Legislature this year lifted the limit, following the urging of then-Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s concurring opinion in the case.
In Walker v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 177, the court held that even though the probable cause hearings occur prior to a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt commitment trial, the superior court cannot consider hearsay evidence in psychological evaluation reports about conduct that, although criminal, does not qualify as the type of offense that is a prerequisite to an SVP commitment. The court concluded, “neither the Legislature nor our case law has created a hearsay exception allowing admission of hearsay accounts involving prior, nonpredicate allegations or convictions at SVPA probable cause hearings.” (See here.)
The Chief Justice signed the court’s opinion, but wrote separately to urge legislative action, including the creation of a hearsay exception that the court held didn’t exist. She was “concerned . . . that our ruling will complicate, if not frustrate, the intended screening function of SVP probable cause hearings,” and she wanted “the Legislature to provide additional guidance addressing the proper conduct of such hearings” because guidance at the time was “generous[ly] . . . characteriz[ed]” by the court “as ‘spare.’ ” (12 Cal.5th at p. 210.) For its part, the court’s opinion said the Legislature “can choose to permit hearsay involving prior nonpredicate crimes to come in through evaluation reports,” but it eschewed “taking a position on whether such an exception ought to exist.” (12 Cal.5th at p. 204.)
Earlier this year, the Legislature so chose. It passed and Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1253, which provides the hearsay rule doesn’t make inadmissible various specified statements that are “[w]ithin an official written report or record of a law enforcement officer regarding a sexual offense that resulted in a person’s conviction.” A contemporary legislative analysis of the bill quoted a supporting argument that noted the Walker opinion and the Chief Justice’s concurrence, and stated, “AB 1253’s hearsay exception is narrowly targeted to address the Chief Justice’s urging.”
Related:
Legislature codifies Supreme Court opinion on noncompete agreements
Legislature filled a gap Justice Liu identified in statute about resentencing of veterans
Justice Liu separate statements influence legislative session