in Re Commitment of Michael Bohannan, 388 S.W.3d 296

Texas SVP statute defines behavioral abnormality as a congenital or acquired condition predisposing a person to commit a sexually violent offense.
Statute allows the State and the respondent to obtain expert examinations, with indigent defendants to be appointed an expert paid by the State.
Definition of behavioral abnormality does not require the expert be a physician.
Bohannan raped two women in 1982; later offenses and serial violations led to an SVP evaluation and civil commitment petition.
Shursen, a licensed professional counselor, sought to testify as an SVP expert but was initially excluded by a trial court based on lack of medical/psychological credentials.
The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion as harmful error; the Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a non-physician testify as an SVP expert	Shursen qualified by training in counseling and actuarial methods.	Only physicians/psychologists should testify in SVP proceedings.	A non-physician may testify; exclusion was error.
Is the trial court’s exclusion of Shursen proper under the Act	Act contemplates non-medical experts; Shursen’s qualifications fit the issue.	Qualifying requirements implicitly limit to medical/psychological experts.	Exclusion was an abuse of discretion.
Does SVP behavioral abnormality require two separate elements (condition and predisposition) or a single unified issue	Two elements are distinct; evaluated separately.	They are a single, unified issue recombined by the court below.	Behavioral abnormality is a single unified issue.
What is the proper standard for admitting expert testimony in SVP proceedings	Experts may rely on actuarial tests and interviews to assess predisposition.	Testimony must avoid reliance on speculation and subjective guesswork.	Experts may testify if qualifications, methods, and reasoning meet reliability and relevance standards.

Dodson v. Beamon, 311 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 2010) (discusses permissible expert testimony in SVP cases and exclusion of testimony)
Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148 (Tex. 1996) (limits on expert testimony admissibility; test for reliability)
Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) (milestones for reliability and admissibility of expert testimony)
K-Mart Corp. v. Honeycutt, 24 S.W.3d 357 (Tex. 2000) (trial courts must ensure expert testimony aids the trier of fact)
Roberts v. Williamson, 111 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. 2003) (requirements for expert qualifications and relevance)
State v. Central Expressway Sign Assocs., 302 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. 2009) (general framework for expert reliability and admissibility)