Skip to content
Name: Garcetti v. Superior Court (Marentez)
Case #: B143330
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 12/14/2000
Subsequent History: Review Granted March 21, 2001 (S094676)

The trial court erred in rejecting outright the actuarial evidence relied upon by the experts at this probable cause hearing brought under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. Here the record demonstrated that sufficient admissible evidence was presented through the testimony of Dr. Vognsen to provide probable cause to set the matter for trial. The standard to be utilized at a probable cause hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6602, subdivision (a), is whether there exists such a state of facts as would lead a person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a “strong suspicion” that the person named in the petition is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon his release from custody. Justice Grignon dissented, finding that the superior court judge made factual findings that were dispositive on the issue of the likelihood of reoffense, which are supported by substantial evidence, and are therefore conclusive.