People v. Wright

Citations: 4 Cal. App. 5th 537; 208 Cal. Rptr. 3d 686; 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 897Docket: B269705

Court: California Court of Appeal; October 24, 2016; California; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In January 2016, the trial court determined John Wright to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) and committed him to a state hospital indefinitely. Wright appealed, arguing that the commitment lacked substantial evidence, particularly contesting the validity of the hebephilia diagnosis made by the prosecution's expert, Dr. Michael Musacco. Wright claimed that the diagnosis was flawed due to insufficient information about the victims' physical characteristics and sexual development, leading to a significant disconnect between the evidence and the expert's conclusions. The appellate court agreed with Wright, referencing Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) to illustrate the analytical gap in the expert testimony. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Wright's criminal history includes a 1996 conviction for a lewd act against a 14-year-old girl, resulting in a six-month jail sentence and probation. In 2001, he was convicted for lewd acts against two minors, ages 14 and 15, and in 2005, for oral copulation with a female under 18. Following his 2005 conviction, the People sought his commitment under the SVPA, and after two probable cause hearings, the court found sufficient grounds for trial. Wright waived his right to a jury trial, and the bench trial featured testimony from Dr. Musacco, who diagnosed Wright with hebephilia based on evaluations conducted over several years.

Hebephilia is identified as a sexual attraction to pubescent children, specifically those between pre-pubescent and post-pubescent ages. Dr. Musacco, who diagnosed hebephilia, acknowledged its rarity and the controversy surrounding it, particularly noting its exclusion from the DSM-5. Courts in jurisdictions following the Frye standard have determined that this exclusion indicates a lack of general acceptance in the scientific community for hebephilia as a valid diagnosis. While some jurisdictions require a Frye hearing to assess the acceptance of hebephilia, others allow courts to consider expert testimony and case facts to conclude a hebephilia diagnosis could meet mental abnormality standards for sexually violent predator (SVP) determinations.

Historically, courts have refrained from using hebephilia as a basis for involuntary commitment due to its contested status in the mental health field. Current California law specifies that an SVP's mental disorder does not need to be listed in the DSM for commitment purposes. Dr. Musacco emphasized that understanding a victim's physical development beyond just their age is crucial, as maturity varies among individuals. He also conceded a lack of knowledge about the specific characteristics of Wright's victims other than their ages, leading him to hypothesize about their sexual maturity and its influence on Wright's behavior.

Dr. Musacco expressed uncertainty regarding the application of a hebephilia diagnosis to Wright, stating it is "debatable" due to insufficient information about the sexual development of the victims, whose ages ranged from 14 to 17, with specific doubts about the 14- and 15-year-olds' developmental status. He acknowledged that without knowledge of the victims' physical characteristics, he had to make assumptions that could lead to an inaccurate diagnosis, particularly if the victims were not pubescent. Dr. Musacco rated Wright's case as a "six" on a scale of 1-10, reflecting his reservations. Following the prosecution's presentation, Wright moved to dismiss the petition based on the lack of proven mental disorder, but the court found the evidence "barely" sufficient to proceed.

In contrast, Dr. Phoenix, who evaluated Wright multiple times, concluded that he was not a sexually violent predator (SVP) and did not possess a diagnosed mental disorder, citing inadequate evidence of any sexual abnormality. She noted the absence of evidence indicating that Wright was aroused by females in the relevant developmental stage typically associated with hebephilia, emphasizing that no offenses were committed against younger females. Dr. Phoenix believed Wright's behavior stemmed from immaturity and a desire for attention rather than a deviant sexual objective.

Ultimately, on January 15, 2016, the trial court classified Wright as an SVP and committed him to Coalinga State Hospital for an indefinite term.

The trial court determined that a diagnosis of hebephilia was appropriate for Wright due to his similar conduct with four victims, two of whom were aged 11 to 14, fitting the hebephilia definition. The court noted Wright's consistent pattern of targeting young females upon release from jail but did not consider the lack of evidence regarding the victims' physical or sexual development. 

Under Section 6604, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is a sexually violent predator, defined as someone convicted of a sexually violent offense against multiple victims with a mental disorder that poses a danger of engaging in further violent behavior. The standard of review requires courts to assess the entire record favorably to the judgment, ensuring evidence is substantial—meaning it must be credible, reasonable, and of solid value.

Expert testimony can constitute substantial evidence, but if it relies on speculative, unproven, or conjectural factors, it lacks evidentiary value and may be excluded. An expert's opinion is deemed insufficient if based on unsupported assumptions. Courts emphasize that expert opinions must be grounded in factual evidence and that speculation does not provide adequate support for opinions. Evidence Code section 801 requires that the basis for an expert's opinion must be reliable and relevant to the specific testimony provided.

An expert's opinion cannot rely on unproven assumptions or speculative factors, as speculation does not constitute evidence necessary for a conviction or involuntary commitment. In this case, the trial court's conclusion regarding Wright's mental disorder, based on Dr. Musacco's opinion of hebephilia, lacked substantial evidentiary support. Dr. Musacco's diagnosis relied on unsubstantiated hypotheses about the victims' physical and sexual development, rendering it devoid of legal significance. The trial court failed to critically evaluate the evidentiary shortcomings central to Dr. Musacco's reasoning, leading to an improper acceptance of the expert's conclusion. Consequently, the judgment must be reversed due to insufficient substantial evidence to support Wright's commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP). The court's decision is reversed and certified for publication.