Skip to content
Name: In re Brian J.
Case #: E038381
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 04/24/2007
Summary

The ward’s extended commitment under Welfare & Institutions Code section 1800 was supported by substantial evidence and did not violate equal protection. While the expert testimony as to whether the ward’s disorder caused him serious difficulty in controlling his sexually deviant behavior was conflicting, the jury resolved those conflicts against him. The jury’s true finding satisfied the stringent requirements for an extended detention set forth in In re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117. Nor does the juvenile Extended Detention Act deprive court wards of equal protection. While the civil commitment procedures for adult prisoners under the SVP Act and MDO laws differ from those under the juvenile detention act, wards are not similarly situated to adult prisoners. But even if wards and adult prisoners are similarly situated in some respects, the statutes do not lead to disparate treatment. A prosecutor commits misconduct during argument when he interjects his personal views and appeals to passions and prejudice. The Attorney General conceded the prosecutor committed misconduct when he argued to the jury that by finding the petition true it could make sure appellant did not sexually victimize another member of the community and when he gave his own definition of addiction. But, the misconduct was cured by the trial court’s curative admonition because the court tailored the admonition to the prosecutor’s remarks.