Mercer

People v. Mercer

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 178·70 Cal. App. 4th 463·82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 723·99 Daily Journal DAR 1993·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1568
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 1, 1999E021569California741 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ward, J.

J.Defendant Trell James Mercer, Jr., appeals from his commitment to Atascadero State Hospital following a jury finding that he was a sexually violent predator within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVP Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was a sexually violent predator likely to reoffend if released. He also contends the SVP Act denied him equal protection of the law because it treats offenders differently than they are treated under other civil commitment schemes. In a supplemental brief, defendant contends the prosecution failed to meet its burden of establishing the reliability of the protocol and techniques its expert witnesses had used to predict he was likely to reoffend. We find no error, and we affirm.

Facts and Procedural Background

Analysis

I. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Support the Jury’s Finding

Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was a sexually violent predator likely to reoffend if he was released.

A. Standard of Review

No court has yet articulated the standard for considering the sufficiency of the evidence to…

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.