Otto

People v. Otto

Good Law
80 Cal. App. 4th 75·95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 236·2000 WL 434821
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 9, 2000A086761California6,187 words

Opinion

Opinion

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

This appeal arises from Jimmie Dale Otto's commitment under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVP Act or the Act). (Welf. & Inst.Code, [1] § 6600 et seq.) Otto raises numerous issues on appeal. In the published portion of this opinion, we address Otto's challenge to the trial court's admission of certain hearsay evidence under the authority of section 6600, subdivision (a). In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we address Otto's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and his other constitutional challenges. We affirm.

When the Legislature enacted the SVP Act in 1995, it explained the purpose of the Act as identification of incarcerated individuals who "are not safe to be at large and if released [would] represent a danger to the health and safety of others in that they are likely to engage in acts of sexual violence" and confinement and treatment of those individuals, if they are "found to be likely to commit acts of sexually violent criminal behavior beyond a reasonable doubt." (Stats.1995, ch. 763, § 1, No. 10 West's Cal. Legis. Service, p. 4611.) The process for determining whether a convicted sex offender…

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.