B. GENERAL LEGAL CONCEPTS
219 . Reasonable Doubt in Civil Commitment Proceedings
The fact that a petition to (declare r espondent a sexually violent
predator/declar e r espondent a mentally disordered o ffender/extend
respondent’ s commitment) has been filed is not evidence that the petition
is true. Y ou must not be biased against the respondent just because the
petition has been filed and this matter has been br ought to trial. The
Petitioner is r equir ed to prove the allegations of the petition ar e true
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond a r easonable doubt is pr oof that leaves you with an
abiding conviction that the allegations of the petition are true. The
evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life
is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.
In deciding whether the Petitioner has proved the allegations of the
petition are true beyond a r easonable doubt, you must impartially
compare and consider all the evidence that was received throughout the
entire trial. Unless the evidence pr oves the Respondent
pr edator”> beyond a r easonable doubt, you must find the petition is not New August 2009; Revised August 2015 BENCH NOTES Instructional Duty The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct jurors on the reasonable doubt standard in civil commitment proceedings relating to sexually violent predators (W elf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6604, 6605) and mentally disordered of fenders (Pen. Code, §§ 2966, 2972) as well as extended commitment proceedings for persons found not guilty by reason of insanity (Pen. Code, § 1026.5(b)) and juveniles committed to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (W elf. & Inst. Code, §§ 1800 et seq.). In People v . Beeson (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1411 [122 Cal.Rptr .2d 384], the Court concluded that neither the federal nor the state Constitution compelled an instruction on a presumption that the allegations of a mentally disordered of fender (MDO) extension petition are not true. However , no court has addressed whether the respondents in extended insanity commitment and extended juvenile commitment proceedings are entitled to an instruction on the presumption. (Pen. Code, § 1026.5(b)(7); W elf. & Inst. Code, § 1801.5; see also Hudec v . Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 815, 826 [339 P .3d 998, 1004] [“section 1026.5(b)(7) provides respondents in commitment extension hearings the rights constitutionally enjoyed by criminal defendants”] and In r e Luis C. (2004) 1 16 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1402-1403 [1 1 Cal.Rptr .3d 429] [same for W elfare and Institutions Code section 1801.5 juvenile proceedings].) • Instructional Requirements. People v . Beeson (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1401 [122 Cal.Rptr .2d 384]; Pen. Code, § 1026.5(b)(7); W elf. & Inst. Code, § 1801.5. Related Instructions CALCRIM No. 220, Reasonable Doubt. CALCRIM No. 3453, Extension of Commitment. CALCRIM No. 3454, Commitment as Sexually V iolent Predator . CALCRIM No. 3454A, Hearing to Determine Curr ent Status Under Sexually V iolent Predator Act . CALCRIM No. 3456, Initial Commitment of Mentally Disor der ed Offender As Condition of Par ole . CALCRIM No. 3457, Extension of Commitment as Mentally Disor der ed Offender . CALCRIM No. 3458, Extension of Commitment to Division of Juvenile Facilities. SECONDAR Y SOURCES 3 W itkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Punishment, § 774. 5 Millman, Sevilla & T arlow , California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 104, Par ole , § 104.06 (Matthew Bender). CALCRIM No. 219 POST -TRIAL: INTRODUCTORY Page last reviewed May 2024 Kathryn Robb, National Director of the Children’s Justice Campaign at Enough Abuse, discusses Vice President Kamala Harris’s unusual mention of child sexual abuse during her Democratic National Convention speech and its broader implications for addressing this issue in America. Lawyers - Get Listed Now! Get a free directory profile listing
