California v. Field
Annotate this CaseMartin Field was committed to a mental hospital after a jury found he was a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predators Act. Field appealed, arguing: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to provide a certain pinpoint jury instruction; (2) the repeated use of the term "sexually violent predator" during trial violated his due process rights; (3) the court prejudicially erred in failing to properly instruct the jury regarding the meaning of the word "likely"; (4) cumulative error required reversal; (5) the SVPA violated the equal protection, double jeopardy, due process, and ex post facto clauses of the federal constitution; and (6) his equal protection rights under the state and federal constitutions were violated when the court permitted the District Attorney to call Field as a witness over his objection. Regarding that last contention, Field argued that because a person found not guilty of crimes by reason of insanity (NGI) may not be compelled to testify at hearings to extend his or her commitment, neither should a person found to be an SVP be compelled to testify. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded Field's equal protection claim involving testifying at trial may have had merit and remanded the matter to the superior court for an evidentiary hearing on that issue. The Court rejected all of Field's other contentions.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.