P. v. Olsen
The People filed an amended petition to extend the commitment of William Karl Olsen under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)[1] after his commitment expired on October 5, 2008. The SVPA provides for the involuntary civil commitment for treatment and confinement of an individual who is found, by a unanimous jury verdict (§ 6603, subds. (e) & (f)), and beyond a reasonable doubt (§ 6604), to be a sexually violent predator (hereafter, sometimes SVP). A jury found the allegation that Olsen was a sexually violent predator to be true. By order filed on February 22, 2011, the trial court committed Olsen to the state Department of Mental Health for an indeterminate term.
On appeal, Olsen raises the following issues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to show that he is currently dangerous; (2) the trial court’s response to juror question No. 5 was improper; (3) indeterminate commitment under the SVPA violates his constitutional right to equal protection; and (4) the SVPA violates his due process rights and the ex post facto and double jeopardy clauses and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the federal constitution.
Pursuant to the ruling of the California Supreme Court in People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172 (McKee) that the equal protection challenge to the indeterminate term under the SVPA has potential merit, we will reverse the judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with McKee. We find no merit in the remaining issues raised by Olsen, for the reasons stated below.
Comments on P. v. Olsen