Murillo

Murillo v. Superior Court

Good Law
143 Cal. App. 4th 730·49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 511
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 2006G035816California3,523 words

Opinion

Opinion

Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney, Mark Vos and Mary L. Andonov, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

RYLAARSDAM, Acting P.J.

This petition for a writ of mandate arises from an action under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq. (the Act) to have petitioner Richard Murillo civilly committed as a sexually violent predator. We are asked to determine whether the district attorney may propound requests for admissions, which, if admitted, might eliminate the state's burden to prove the ultimate issues in the case.

Earlier cases have held that certain types of discovery under the Civil Discovery Act (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.010 et seq.) apply to actions under the Act. As a matter of first impression, however, we hold that requests for admissions may not be propounded in proceedings under the Act because their use would eviscerate the Act's requirement that the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and, where the case is tried to a jury, obtain a unanimous verdict before a person may be committed. To relieve the state of this burden would deprive a person of liberty interests in violation of the right to due process.

In 2001 the San Bernardino…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.