Lowe
People v. Lowe
Opinion
Lead Opinion
McConnell, J.
*681 Opinion
INTRODUCTION
Randall Kent Lowe appeals from an order under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) 1 (Act) committing him to the State Department of Mental Health for treatment and confinement in a secured facility for an indeterminate term. He contends the trial court prejudicially erred by permitting the People’s experts to testify he was “likely” to engage in “predatory” sexually violent offenses in the future as these are legal issues and the experts’ testimony invaded the jury’s province. He additionally contends, like the appellant in People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427 , 223 P.3d 566 ], his indeterminate commitment violates equal protection principles.
We conclude the expert testimony in this case did not invade the jury’s province as the experts properly utilized statutory criteria to frame their opinions and they did not cross the line from testifying about the bases for their opinion to advocating for a particular outcome. We further conclude Lowe’s indeterminate commitment does not violate' equal protection principles. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s order.