In Re AB, 334 S.W.3d 746

Appellant, A.B., appeals a probate court conviction for commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP) to secure confinement in DMH.
The State presented testimony from multiple victims (E.D., C.B., M.D., J.C., K.R., M.R.) and expert witnesses (Drs. Scott, Hoberman, Neufeld).
Dr. Scott diagnosed pedophilia and deemed it a mental abnormality but concluded Appellant was not more likely than not to re-offend if not confined.
Dr. Hoberman diagnosed pedophilia, used SVR-20 risk assessment, and concluded Appellant is more likely than not to re-offend if not confined.
Dr. Neufeld did not find a mental abnormality but concluded Appellant is not more likely than not to re-offend based on STATIC-99; his conclusion on the second prong was deemed irrelevant due to lack of mental abnormality.
The jury found Appellant is an SVP and the probate court ordered commitment, which the appeal challenges on sufficiency grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence clearly and convincingly shows Appellant is more likely than not to re-offend if not confined.	A.B. argues insufficient evidence; relies on Scott/Neufeld; asserts Hoberman's method relies on emotion and misapplies data.	The State contends Hoberman's SVR-20-based testimony, along with victim history, supports likelihood of re-offense.	Yes; sufficient clear and convincing evidence supports likelihood of re-offense.

Holtcamp v. State, 259 S.W.3d 537 (Mo.banc 2008) (defines SVP standard and two-prong test for commitment)
In re Van Orden, 271 S.W.3d 579 (Mo.banc 2008) (clarifies appellate review in SVP cases; weight of evidence not reweighed on appeal)
In re Barlow, 250 S.W.3d 725 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (discusses sufficiency standard in SVP determinations)
In re Dunivan, 247 S.W.3d 77 (Mo.App. S.D.2008) (addresses standard of review and admissibility of expert testimony)