In re the Care & Treatment of Girard
294 P.3d 236
Kan.2013Background
- Actuarial risk assessments (STATIC-99, MnSOST-R) used by State experts to predict sexual offender recidivism in two commitment cases.
- Defendants Girard and Mallard were petitioned as sexually violent predators under K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq.
- District court admitted expert testimony relying partially on actuarial assessments; trial court treated Frye as controlling or not decisively.
- Court of Appeals majority held that neither Frye nor Daubert applied because actuarial tools were not scientific.
- This Court granted review to decide whether Frye applies to actuarial risk assessments.
- Court ultimately holds Frye applies and these assessments satisfy Frye’s general-acceptance standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are actuarial risk assessments subject to Frye general-acceptance testing? | State argues Frye applies. | Girard/Mallard contest that Daubert should govern. | Yes; Frye applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Heath, 264 Kan. 557 (1998) (Frye governs admission of scientific evidence in Kansas)
- State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803 (2010) (Frye standard applied to expert testimony)
- Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 270 Kan. 443 (2000) (collects Kansas Frye test cases; abstract questions of law relation to Frye)
- Isley, 262 Kan. 281 (1997) (DNA probability testimony meets Frye; statistical analyses judged under Frye)
- Smith v. Deppish, 248 Kan. 217 (1991) (DNA profiling probabilities subject to Frye)
- State v. Graham, 275 Kan. 176 (2003) (Frye applicability to scientific opinion)