How has the court interpreted the word "likely" in the context of a sexual assault case?

It is apparent from the record that, prior to trial, counsel discussed the issues they intended to litigate. It is equally apparent that defendant's prior qualifying conduct was predatory in nature having as it did victims who were strangers, persons of casual acquaintance, or persons with whom a relationship had been established for the primary purpose of victimization. (See 6600, subd. (e); People v. Hurtado, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 1182.) We conclude the parties assumed that, if the People proved that defendant was likely to engage in sexually violent criminal conduct if released, that conduct would be predatory. We consider the case in the manner the parties litigated it.

We also note that defendant's statement of his contention misstates the People's burden to the extent that defendant's statement requires the People to prove that, more likely than not, defendant would engage in sexually violent conduct if released. The term "likely" as used in section 6600 subdivision (a) means that the People had to prove at trial that defendant "present[s] a substantial danger, that is, a serious and well-founded risk" that a defendant will commit such crimes if released. (People v. Roberge (2003) 29 Cal.4th 979, 988.) The parties at trial and the witnesses simply used the word "likely" and, since its definition in this context was not otherwise discussed or litigated, we may assume the parties and witnesses properly understood its meaning.

We turn then to defendant's contention that the evidence is insufficient to prove defendant's disorder did not make it likely he would engage in sexually violent conduct if released. Given that challenge we "must review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether substantial evidence supports the determination below. [Citation.] To be substantial, the evidence must be `"of ponderable legal significance . . . reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value."' [Citation.]" (People v. Mercer (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 463, 466.) "`In reviewing the record to determine the sufficiency of the evidence this court may not redetermine the credibility of witnesses, nor reweigh any of the evidence, and must draw all reasonable inferences, and resolve all conflicts, in favor of the judgment.' [Citation.]" (People v. Sumahit (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 347, 352.)