P. v. Sullivan

Filed 4/20/06 P. v. Sullivan CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

After a jury found Manse Sullivan to be a sexually violent predator (SVP), the trial court extended his civil commitment at Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.).[1] On appeal, he contends: (1) he was deprived of due process when the trial court allowed an expert witness to testify regarding uncharged offenses as the basis of his opinion testimony; and (2) due process limits the expert witness to information that is subject to cross-examination. We find no error and affirm.

I. Statement of Facts

Dr. Douglas Korpi, a clinical psychologist for the Department of Mental Health, interviewed and evaluated appellant. Prior to interviewing appellant, Dr. Korpi reviewed several reports, including probation reports, police reports, prior medical reports by psychologists or psychiatrists, and disciplinary reports. Dr. Korpi's evaluation considered three issues: (1) whether appellant had been convicted of a qualifying offense against two or more victims; (2) whether appellant suffered from a mental disorder; and (3) whether appellant was likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior due to his mental disorder.

In Dr. Korpi's opinion, appellant had suffered two qualifying offenses. The first qualifying offense was a conviction arising out of a rape committed in December 1976. Appellant entered Kathleen W.'s home through a window, jumped on her, covered her mouth, put a pocket knife close to her, raped her, and robbed her. While he was on parole for this offense, appellant was charged with his second qualifying offense, which was a rape that occurred in May 1984. In that case, Marilyn C. returned home, and appellant jumped out of her closet. Appellant covered her face, hit her, and raped her. After the police arrested appellant for this offense, he told them that he had a problem and wished that he had not done it.

Dr. Korpi also considered the circumstances of two other rapes and an attempted rape in determining whether appellant had a mental disorder and whether he was likely to reoffend. In July 1968, appellant abducted Betty B. in her own car, stole her purse, and gave it to another man who drove away. After appellant drove the woman to an orchard where he raped her, he drove to a vacant apartment where he raped her again. He also drove her to an empty alley where he raped her a third time. The police found appellant's hand print on the vacant apartment's windowsill, and the victim identified appellant's photograph in a series of mug shots as â€