The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that in order to find that appellant met the criteria for recommitment under the Sexually Violent Predator’s Act (SVPA), ithad to find that he was likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior. However, the error was harmless based on the record. Predatory acts under the SVPA are acts which are directed toward a stranger, a casual acquaintance, or an individual with whom a relationship has been established for the purpose of victimization. All of the offenses of which appellant was convicted fit this definition. It was not reasonably possible that had the jury been instructed properly, it would have found him likely to commit future sexually violent offenses but unlikely to commit predatory offenses.