Brasch v. State
332 S.W.3d 115
| Mo. | 2011Background
- Brasch was adjudged a sexually violent predator (SVP) under § 632.495, RSMo Supp. 2009, and committed to DMH for care and treatment.
- He has diagnosed schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder, major depressive disorder, and substance dependence, with delusions and paranoid beliefs affecting his conduct.
- Historical misconduct includes prior sexual abuse allegations, burglaries, sodomy, and multiple home invasions, with criminal sentences and periods of incompetency to stand trial.
- Experts offered competing risk assessments: Dr. Scott supported SVP designation; Dr. Logan questioned reliability of assessments given Brasch's schizophrenia.
- During closing, the State urged jurors to prevent another victim’s name on the list; Brasch moved for mistrial, which the court overruled.
- The jury found Brasch to be an SVP, and the court ordered commitment to DMH until safe to be at large.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 632.495.2 is unconstitutional as applied to Brasch | Brasch contends treatment is necessary for release and DMH’s regimen prevents MOSOP. | State may commit and treat SVPs even if full rehabilitation to release is not guaranteed. | Constitutionality upheld; statute authorizes confinement for public safety despite treatment outcomes. |
| Whether the closing argument about preventing another victim violated due process or merits mistrial | Argument improperly inflamed jury passion and urged verdict on emotion. | Closing allowed to draw reasonable inferences from evidence about future dangerousness. | No abuse of discretion; argument permissible and not prejudicial error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (U.S. 1992) (due process requires relation between commitment and purpose)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1997) (permissible civil commitment of SVPs; treatment possibility not absolute)
- Whitfield v. State, 250 S.W.3d 722 (Mo. App. 2008) (SVP confinement may be upheld even when treatment cannot fully rehabilitate)
- Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1986) (state can commit dangerous individuals to treatment-focused institutions)
- State v. Raspberry, 452 S.W.2d 169 (Mo. 1970) (closing arguments may discuss future danger; not inherently improper)
- Keveney v. Missouri Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. banc 2010) (jury may rely on conflicting expert testimony; standard of review preserved)
- F.R. v. St. Charles County Sheriff's Dep't, 301 S.W.3d 56 (Mo. banc 2010) (constitutional challenge to statute analyzed de novo; burden on challenger)