People v. Morrison

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, considers whether the Sexually Violent Predator Act violates equal protection by failing to require a personal advisement of the right to a jury trial and a personal waiver before a bench trial. The court holds that rational basis review applies to this challenge. Because the claim was not raised in the trial court, the court conditionally affirms the commitment order and remands to allow Morrison to present the equal protection claim and the People to justify the statutory distinction.

Holdings

1. Morrison's equal protection challenge to the SVPA's failure to require a personal jury-trial advisement and personal waiver is subject to rational basis review, not strict scrutiny.
2. The court declined to apply forfeiture and permitted Morrison to raise his equal protection challenge in the trial court.
3. On remand, Morrison must be given an opportunity to show that no rational basis for the SVPA's disparate treatment is reasonably conceivable; the People do not bear the burden of proving a compelling interest or producing heightened-scrutiny evidence.
4. If the trial court finds an equal protection violation, it must vacate the SVP order and set the matter for a jury trial unless Morrison knowingly and intelligently waives that right after being personally advised of it.

Questions Presented

1. What level of equal protection scrutiny applies to a challenge to the SVPA's failure to require a personal advisement of the right to jury trial and a personal waiver before a bench trial?
2. Whether Morrison's equal protection challenge should be forfeited because it was not raised in the trial court.
3. What remedy is appropriate when the equal protection challenge was not developed in the trial court?

Disposition

remanded