## Facts

- Smith had prior convictions for sexually violent offenses committed against prepubescent male relatives over roughly 13 years.
- His offending led to multiple incarcerations, and the record showed he reoffended soon after being released back into the community.
- While incarcerated, Smith did not commit known hands-on sexual offenses, but he refused to participate in psychotherapy aimed at treating pedophilia or reducing risk.
- As Smith neared release from his most recent prison term, the People of the State of California filed a petition under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) seeking his involuntary civil commitment.
- At the SVPA trial, the state presented three mental-health witnesses who diagnosed Smith with pedophilia and testified that he had a repeated pattern of sexually violent behavior, had serious difficulty controlling that behavior, and was likely to commit future sexually violent acts against children if released.
- The state’s witnesses also described Smith’s conduct as predatory because he used family relationships and access to child relatives to create opportunities for molestation.
- Smith presented a defense witness who disagreed with the pedophilia diagnosis, reasoning that Smith abused only relatives (not strangers) and had not committed recent sexual offenses while incarcerated.
- The jury found Smith met the statutory definition of a sexually violent predator and ordered him committed for an indeterminate term.
- Smith appealed, arguing the SVPA finding could not stand because he had not recently committed sexually violent acts.

## Issues

1. Whether an SVPA adjudication requires proof that the person committed a sexually violent act in the recent past (particularly outside custody), as opposed to proof of a qualifying disorder and a current likelihood of future sexually violent criminal behavior.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Smith had a diagnosed mental disorder that made him likely to engage in future sexually violent criminal conduct if released.
3. Whether the evidence permitted the jury to treat Smith’s conduct as predatory under the SVPA even though the victims were relatives rather than strangers.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment committing Smith as a sexually violent predator.
- The court rejected Smith’s contention that the SVPA imposes a “recent sexually violent act” requirement as a prerequisite to commitment.
- The court concluded the record contained substantial evidence—particularly the testimony of the state’s witnesses, Smith’s long pattern of offending, quick reoffense after prior releases, and refusal of treatment—supporting the jury’s determination that Smith had a qualifying disorder and was likely to commit sexually violent crimes if released.
- The court declined to reweigh conflicting witness opinions, treating the dispute between the state’s and the defense’s witnesses as a matter for the jury.
- The court accepted that exploiting access to children through family relationships can qualify as predatory behavior for SVPA purposes.

## Legal Principles

- Under California’s SVPA, the People must prove qualifying prior sexually violent offenses, a diagnosed mental disorder, and that as a result of that disorder the person is likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if released.
- The SVPA does not require proof of a newly committed or “recent” sexually violent offense as a separate element when the evidence otherwise shows current dangerousness linked to a qualifying disorder.
- On appeal, an SVPA verdict is reviewed for substantial evidence; appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicts between competing witness opinions when the jury’s finding is supported by evidence that is reasonable and credible.
- Predatory conduct may be shown where the offender uses a position of trust or access—such as family ties—to obtain opportunities to molest children.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal upheld Smith’s indeterminate civil commitment under the SVPA, holding that a lack of recent sexual offending while incarcerated did not bar an SVP finding where substantial evidence—especially diagnostic testimony and Smith’s history of rapid reoffense after release—supported the jury’s determination that he remained likely to commit sexually violent crimes if released.


People v. Smith, 2011 WL 2434040 (2011)