In Re the Care & Treatment of Ramage
387 P.3d 853
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Donald Ramage was convicted in 1988 of five counts of indecent liberties with a child.
- The State filed a sexually violent predator (SVP) commitment petition in 2000; that petition was dismissed for failure to meet statutory trial time limits.
- Ramage violated parole after release, was returned to Kansas Department of Corrections custody, and remained incarcerated until 2012.
- The State filed a new SVP petition in 2012 based on Ramage’s history and anticipated release; the district court denied motions to dismiss or limit evidence.
- Dr. Jane Kohrs evaluated Ramage in 2012, diagnosed pedophilia and personality disorder with antisocial traits, and relied on treatment records (including pre-2000 materials) to opine Ramage was likely to reoffend.
- After an eight-day jury trial in 2014, the jury found Ramage to be a sexually violent predator; Ramage appealed challenging (1) application of the law-of-the-case doctrine, (2) relevance of pre-2000 evidence, and (3) admissibility of hearsay relied on by the expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law-of-the-case bars use of evidence from the dismissed 2000 petition | Ramage: prior dismissal prevents relitigation and reintroduction of the 2000 evidence | State: 2012 petition was a new proceeding based on imminent release after renewed custody, so doctrine doesn't apply | Law-of-the-case inapplicable; the 2000 matter was a separate suit and no issues were decided on the merits in 2000, so evidence may be used |
| Whether evidence prepared before 2000 was relevant given the time lapse | Ramage: older materials are too remote to prove present mental abnormality/recidivism risk | State: prior records reflect persistent psychological characteristics and behavior that bear on SVP elements | Evidence is relevant; prior records bear on mental abnormality, likelihood of reoffense, and difficulty controlling behavior |
| Whether expert testimony based on pre-2000 materials constituted inadmissible hearsay | Ramage: Dr. Kohrs’ reliance on out-of-court records/opinions makes her testimony hearsay and inadmissible | State: K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 59-29a06(c) permits experts in SVP proceedings to rely on facts/data made known to them even if not independently admissible | Expert testimony admissible under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 59-29a06(c) (analogous to Fed. R. Evid. 703); Dr. Kohrs properly relied on those records |
| Whether district court abused discretion admitting the challenged evidence | Ramage: admitting remote records and expert reliance was erroneous and prejudicial | State: admission fell within relevance and statutory allowances for expert reliance | No abuse of discretion; district court properly found relevance and applied the statutory expert-evidence rule |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Collier, 263 Kan. 629 (decision on law-of-the-case and relitigation in same suit) (Kan. 1998)
- Venters v. Sellers, 293 Kan. 87 (distinguishing collateral estoppel and law-of-the-case) (Kan. 2012)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (constitutional contours of civil commitment for sexually violent predators) (U.S. 2002)
- State v. Parry, 51 Kan. App. 2d 928 (describing law-of-the-case doctrine) (Kan. Ct. App. 2015)
- State v. Gaona, 293 Kan. 930 (standards for expert testimony) (Kan. 2012)