Court Opinion

ID: 9751197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:12:45.455813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:38.617247
License: Public Domain

PERREN, J.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority concludes that the broad language of Penal Code section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P) permits a mentally disordered offender (MDO) finding based on any crime in which the offender used force or violence, including force or violence directed against an animal.1 I interpret the statute to apply only if the threat or use of force or violence in the commission of the crime for which the person was sentenced to state prison is force or violence directed against a human being. (See § 2962, subd. (b).)
There can be no dispute that appellant’s crime was vile and despicable. I agree with the majority that his act of slashing the throat of the dog was “a violent and heinous offense.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 456.) It merited the conviction and the punishment that he received. But, regardless of how contemptible the crime, I cannot conclude that it supports institutionalization under the MDO statute in addition to, and after completion of, the sentence specified for the offense. No matter how wrong the act, I conclude the law does not permit it.
*458Section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P) should not be extended to crimes directed at animals without a specific legislative expression of that intent. The MDO statute is a civil proceeding but, as the Chief Justice noted with respect to the analogous Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.), a significant and compelling private interest is at stake. (People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 217 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 327, 26 P.3d 1061] (conc. opn. of George, C. J.).) An MDO, like the sexually violent predator, faces a complete loss of liberty for a period of time, followed by potentially indefinite recommitment proceedings. (Ibid.) Courts should be certain that the statutory requirements for a commitment are clear and precise.
As the majority observes, section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P) covers offenses where force or violence is used, without expressly limiting the object of such force or violence to human beings. The mere absence of limiting language, however, does not make the statute unambiguous and does not compel the conclusion that a crime of force or violence against an animal qualifies for MDO treatment.
In People v. Collins (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 690, 697-698 [12 Cal.Rptr.2d 768], we stated that “force” and “violence” are words of “ordinary meaning and require no further definition.” I would expand on that assertion by stating that, although the words “force” and “violence” may have a plain meaning standing alone, a crime “in which the prisoner used force or violence” does not have a plain and unambiguous meaning in the context of the MDO statute. The meaning of “force” varies according to the statute being considered, and the legal definition in a particular statute may differ from the word’s meaning in “common parlance.” (People v. Richie (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1360 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 200]; People v. McElheny (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 396, 403 [187 Cal.Rptr. 39]; People v. Pitmon (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 38, 52 [216 Cal.Rptr. 221].) The same may be said about the word “violence” and, in some contexts, courts have used “violence” as a synonym for “force.” (See People v. Davison (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 206, 213-214 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 438]; People v. Collins, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 694.)
Moreover, the question of whether the MDO statute extends beyond crimes directed at human beings was touched on in Collins without resolution. In Collins, the court recognized that section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P) could “theoretically” include a crime entailing the use of force against property, but stated that this result would be “at odds with the legislative history” to limit MDO commitments to violent offenders. (People v. Collins, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at pp. 697-698.) Collins suggested further legislation *459to clarify the crimes qualifying for MDO treatment, and this suggestion led to the 1995 amendment to section 2962. (People v. Anzalone (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1074, 1082 [81 Cal.Rptr.2d 315, 969 P.2d 160].)
Prior to 1995, section 2962 included no list of qualifying crimes and defined an MDO offense generally as “a crime in which the prisoner used force or violence, or caused serious bodily injury.” (Former § 2962, subd. (e), added by Stats. 1986, ch. 858, § 2, p. 2952, amended by Stats. 1989, ch. 228, § 1, p. 1252.) The 1995 amendment added a list of specific offenses which qualified for MDO treatment in subdivision (e)(2)(A)-(O), but did not expressly limit the scope of a crime involving “force or violence” in subdivision (e)(2)(P). It left subdivision (e)(2)(P) unchanged. (Stats. 1995, ch. 761, § 1.)
Nevertheless, every offense listed in section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(A)(O) is limited to acts which endanger or harm human beings through the use of force or violence. Even the inclusion of arson is limited by its reference to section 451, subdivision (a), which specifically refers to great bodily injury, or to other subdivisions, “where the act posed a substantial danger of physical harm to others.” (§ 2962, subd. (e)(2)(L).)2
The Supreme Court stated that the legislative intent of section 2962, including the 1995 amendment, “was to require treatment of defendants as MDO’s only in certain limited situations, namely where, because of mental disorder, the prisoner inflicted serious bodily injury or committed such forcible or violent crimes as manslaughter, mayhem, kidnapping, rape, or robbery with dangerous weapon use.” (People v. Anzalone, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1081, italics omitted.) In 1995, the Legislature made it clear that qualifying offenses include offenses which are not violent felonies under section 667.5, but nowhere in the original or amended version of section 2962 is there any reference to a crime which is not directed against a human being. The majority’s claim that section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P) is unambiguous is based on the words “force” and “violence” independent of the MDO statute.
The majority emphasizes that a person who violently or forcefully injures an animal might be dangerous to people, or become dangerous to people as his or her violence escalates from animals to human beings. It does not follow, however, that involuntary confinement mandated by the MDO statute should be extended to apply to a category of persons who have not committed a crime against a person.
*460Section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P) is ambiguous with respect to its application to a crime involving the use of force or violence against animals or property, rather than people. Here, the rule of statutory construction known as ejusdem generis is available to provide guidance in resolving this ambiguity. Ejusdem generis applies when a general term follows a list of specific items or categories and limits application of the general term to matters that are similar to those which are specifically enumerated. (Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116, 141 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 999 P.2d 718]; People v. Gordon (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1412 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 725].) The rule presumes that, if it intended a general phrase to be used in its unrestricted sense, the Legislature would not also set forth restricted examples which would be surplusage. (Kraus, supra, at p. 141.)
In this case, ejusdem generis restricts the crimes qualifying for MDO treatment under section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P) to crimes similar to those specified in subdivision (e)(2)(A)-(O). Since all of the specified crimes involve the use of force or violence against human beings, subdivision (e)(2)(P) should be interpreted to exclude crimes of force or violence solely against animals.
The majority concedes that its holding “may support the conclusion that a crime against an inanimate object” qualifies as a crime of force or violence permitting MDO treatment. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 456.) I conclude that the holding requires such a conclusion and has the potential of leading to results unquestionably beyond the intent of the Legislature or the language of the legislation.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied April 17, 2002.

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

Similarly, sections 12022.5, 12022.53 and 12022.55, concerning the use of firearms, all require the use of the weapon in the presence of a human being.