P. v. Woodard
Victor Woodard was tried before a jury and determined to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)[1] In this appeal from the order committing him to the State Department of Mental Health (DMH) for an indeterminate period, he contends: (1) the current SVP (sexually violent predator) scheme is unconstitutional; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's determination that he meets the criteria for an SVP; (3) the court abused its discretion in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of the prosecution experts regarding the total compensation they receive for their work on the SVP panel; and (4) the trial court should have held a hearing on his alleged request for substitute counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).
We agree with appellant that under People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, he is entitled to a remand so the trial court can consider his claim that his indeterminate commitment under the current SVP scheme violates his right to equal protection under the law. We reject the remainder of his arguments.
Comments on P. v. Woodard