Walker v. Superior Court
Annotate this Case
As Walker neared the end of a state prison commitment, the People filed a petition to commit him civilly as a sexually violent predator (SVP), supported by two psychologists' evaluations. The evaluations noted Walker’s 1990 conviction for rape and described offenses charged against Walker that did not result in a conviction. In each instance, he was convicted of a different crime against the same victim. The experts obtained details of the conduct underlying these two alleged offenses from a probation report and a police inspector’s affidavit. At a probable cause hearing, Walker objected to the admission of the evaluations, stating they contained inadmissible hearsay. .Walker’s attorney cross-examined the psychologists at length. Walker also testified on his own behalf and called several witnesses, including a third psychologist. After several efforts to have the trial court reverse its finding of probable cause to commit him as an SVP, Walker sought a writ of mandate.
The court of appeal denied his petition. The SVP statute, which requires the psychological evaluations as the basis for an SVP petition, also requires the court to consider the evaluations in deciding whether there is probable cause to proceed to an SVP trial. In reviewing the evaluations, the court may consider hearsay contained within them.
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.