P. v. Hicks
James Riley Hicks appeals the judgment recommitting him to the California Department of Mental Health for treatment as a sexually violent predator (SVP). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.) We conclude, among other things, that the trial court did not err by admitting a police report containing a child victim's statements or by allowing expert testimony on ultimate issues. Admitting probation reports with sentencing information was not reversible error. Hearsay permitted in SVP proceedings does not violate the Sixth Amendment. The SVP Act (SVPA) is not an ex post facto law and does not violate equal protection. Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Hicks