In re Bergstrom

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, considered a habeas corpus petition challenging a no-bail order in a case involving alleged sexual offenses against minors. The court held that Penal Code section 292 is not an unconstitutional legislative extension of the California Constitution's bail provisions and denied the petition. The opinion also addressed whether clear and convincing evidence supported a substantial likelihood of great bodily harm upon release.

Holdings

1. Penal Code section 292 is constitutionally valid and does not constitute an invalid legislative extension by definition of the constitutional terms 'felony offenses involving acts of violence' and 'great bodily harm.' The Legislature has authority to implement the constitutional bail exceptions by identifying offenses falling within their scope.
2. Substantial evidence supported the finding that Bergstrom's release on bail would create a substantial likelihood of great bodily harm to others, and the petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Penal Code section 292 is an invalid legislative extension of the terms 'acts of violence' and 'great bodily harm' in article I, section 12, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Bergstrom's release would create a substantial likelihood of great bodily harm to others under the constitutional bail exception.

Disposition

writ_denied