Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Hurtado

California Supreme Court

Decided August 22, 2002No. S082112Published

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

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  4. People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API