People v. Murphy CA1/1

BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2011, the District Attorney of Napa County filed a petition for defendant’s commitment as an SVP. He had been convicted in 1987 of the molestation of three young girls and in 1994 of the molestation of another girl, all under the age of eight. Prior to trial on the petition, defense counsel filed a motion in limine to allow the jury to “consider the consequences of [a] true finding.” Although the court granted the motion, it changed the language of what was apparently a requested jury instruction from

1 “confined indefinitely” to “confined in a locked facility for treatment.”1 At the next pretrial conference, defense counsel told the court, “I would prefer no discussion of consequences to the compromise we arrived at” and withdrew the request. Instead, counsel asked for the jury to be instructed with CALCRIM No. 3454, which requires the jury to find, “It’s necessary to keep [the defendant] in custody in a secure facility to ensure the health and safety of others.” At trial, two expert witnesses concluded that defendant met the criteria for an SVP. Dr. Dawn Starr gave defendant a diagnosis of pedophilia and borderline personality disorder. She also noted…