petitioner> failed to participate in or complete the State Department of
Mental Health Sex Offender Commitment Program as an indication
that (his/her) condition as a sexually violent predator has not changed.
The meaning and importance of that evidence is for you to decide.]
<Give the following paragraph if the jury has been told about the
petitioner’s underlying conviction>
[You may not conclude that <insert name of petitioner> is
currently a sexually violent predator based solely on (his/her) prior
conviction[s] without additional evidence that (he/she) currently has
such a diagnosed mental disorder.]
In order to prove that <insert name of petitioner> is a
danger to the health and safety of others, the People do not need to
prove a recent overt act committed while (he/she) was in custody. A
recent overt act is a criminal act that shows a likelihood that the actor
may engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior.
New April 2011; Revised February 2012
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury about the basis for a ﬁnding
that a petitioner is currently a sexually violent predator.
If evidence is presented about amenability to voluntary treatment, the court has a
sua sponte duty to give bracketed element 3. (People v. Grassini (2003) 113
Cal.App.4th 765, 777 [6 Cal.Rptr.3d 662]; People v. Calderon (2004) 124
Cal.App.4th 80, 93 [21 Cal.Rptr.3d 92].) Evidence of involuntary treatment in the
community is inadmissible at trial because it is not relevant to any of the SVP
requirements. (People v. Calderon, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 93.)
The court also must give CALCRIM No. 219, Reasonable Doubt in Civil
Proceedings; 222, Evidence; 226, Witnesses; 3550, Pre-Deliberation Instructions;
and any other relevant post-trial instructions. These instructions may need to be
• Elements and Deﬁnitions. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6600, 6605.
•Unanimous Verdict, Burden of Proof. Conservatorship of Roulet (1979) 23
Cal.3d 219, 235 [152 Cal.Rptr. 425, 590 P.2d 1] [discussing conservatorship
proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act and civil commitment
proceedings in general].
• Likely Deﬁned. People v. Roberge (2003) 29 Cal.4th 979, 988 [129
Cal.Rptr.2d 861, 62 P.3d 97].
CALCRIM No. 3454A DEFENSES AND INSANITY