Filed 2/16/22 In re Morse CA4/1 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D077483 In re WILLIAM JIM MORSE on (Super. Ct. No. EMH-000347) Habeas Corpus. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Jeffrey Bruce Jones, Judge. Petition granted. Benjamin Salorio, Public Defender, Darren Bean, Deputy Public Defender for Petitioner. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Joy Utomi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest. On February 20, 2020, the El Centro District Attorney filed a petition to commit William Jim Morse as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 6600 et seq.) (SVPA or the Act). The petition was supported by the evaluations of psychologists 1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified. Erick Fox and G. Preston Sims, in which the doctors concluded that Morse met the definition of a SVPA under the Act. At the probable cause hearing, the People submitted two written psychological evaluations of Morse as the only evidence supporting probable cause. No live testimony was presented. Morse objected to the admission of the two psychological evaluations on the grounds they contained case specific hearsay that was inadmissible under People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez), and the experts’ opinions lacked proper foundation because they were based on inadmissible hearsay. The People countered that the evaluations were admissible under Evidence Code sections 721, 801, and 802. Although the court sustained Morse’s objection under Sanchez, it determined sufficient evidence in the two reports was admissible, leading the court to find there was probable cause that Morse is a person who meets the criteria of a SVP.2 Morse then filed a writ asking the superior court to reverse its finding under the SVPA that there is probable cause to believe he is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory behavior without treatment or custody. He argued that the court correctly found Sanchez applied at the probable cause hearing, and, after sustaining his hearsay objection to the experts’ evaluations, there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s probable cause finding. Morse also maintained that the People “waived” their right to assert section 6602 is an implied exception to the hearsay rule by failing to raise this specific ground at the hearing. 2 A “ ‘Sexually violent predator’ means a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals