How have the courts treated expert testimony in the context of the SVPA?

^10. Appellant raises one final point. He contends the experts who testified at trial invaded the province of the jury by opining whether his prior crimes qualified as predicate offenses under the SVPA. Appellant has not cited the portion of the transcript where this allegedly occurred. He has forfeited the right to raise the issue. (Guthrey v. State of California, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1115.) The issue is also unpersuasive. As Evidence Code section 805 states, "Testimony in the form of an opinion that is otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact."

^11. Appellant has tried to remedy this omission by citing authority in his reply brief. We do not address arguments that are raised for the first time in a reply brief. (People v. Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 536, fn. 30.)