People v. Ashley CA1/1

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Horace Ashley appeals from the extension of his civil commitment for two years pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5, subdivision (b)(1).1 He asserts the trial court violated his statutory right to not be compelled to testify against himself when it permitted the prosecutor to call him as a witness during the People’s case-in-chief. We agree. (Hudec v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 815 (Hudec).) However, we find the error harmless. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 (Watson).) Defendant also challenges Dr. Tierney’s reliance on hearsay statements as the basis for her expert opinion. The question whether such reliance violates a criminal defendant’s confrontation rights is currently pending before the California Supreme

1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. Court.2 However, at the present time we are constrained by principles of stare decisis to follow existing law, which rejects defendant’s argument. (See People v. Rodriguez (2012) 58 Cal.4th 587, People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605; People v. Hill (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1127-1128.) We affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY3

“On February 17, 1982, defendant assaulted…