People v. Hurtado
California Supreme Court
1Concurrence
BAXTER, J., Concurring.
I accept the majority’s statutory construction linking commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP) to the risk of future “predatory” acts. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600, subd. (e); see id., §§ 6600, subd. (a)(1), 6604.)1 1 also agree with the majority that failure to so instruct defendant’s jury was harmless, and that the challenged commitment order should not be reversed on this ground. I write separately, however, to question the majority’s explicit holding that the demanding Chapman2 standard of prejudice must apply—a holding that seems both unjustified and…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.