In Re: Thomas C., 1 CA-MH 16-0051-SP

Thomas C. was civilly committed as a sexually violent person (SVP) in 2007 and confined at the Arizona Community Protection and Treatment Center (ACPTC).
In 2016 Thomas petitioned for an annual absolute discharge; the State bore the burden to prove continued commitment beyond a reasonable doubt under A.R.S. § 36-3714(C).
The State presented Dr. Sarah Petty, who prepared the ACPTC annual report and testified she believed Thomas remained an SVP and was likely to reoffend if released.
Thomas challenged Dr. Petty’s competency as a “competent professional,” her limited SVP evaluation experience, and alleged actuarial scoring errors in two risk instruments.
The superior court admitted Dr. Petty’s report and CV, found her competent, credited her testimony, and denied the discharge petition, finding the State met the statutory standard.
On appeal the court reviewed admissibility for abuse of discretion and factual findings for clear error and affirmed the denial of discharge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency of expert witness	Dr. Petty lacked required familiarity and experience to be a “competent professional.”	Dr. Petty’s training, CV, experience with psychosexual evaluations, and testimony satisfied statutory and Rule 702 requirements.	Court upheld competency finding; admission was within trial court’s discretion.
Admissibility despite actuarial scoring errors	Testing errors rendered her opinion unreliable and should be excluded under Rule 702.	Errors were not so serious as to make results unreliable; adversary process (cross-exam) cures credibility issues.	Court rejected exclusion: no timely objection and errors went to weight not admissibility.
Sufficiency of evidence of "likely" future sexual violence	Actuarial score (17.3% in 5 years) shows low risk; insufficient proof of high probability of reoffending.	Court may rely on clinical opinions, records, dynamic risk factors, and behavior; not limited to actuarials.	Court affirmed that substantial evidence (Dr. Petty’s opinion and records) supported finding of high probability.
Standard of review for annual SVP discharge hearing	(implicit) Trial findings should be reweighed on appeal.	Trial court’s factual findings reviewed for clear error; credibility for factfinder.	Court applied deferential review and did not disturb superior court’s findings.

State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191 (discussing review of expert testimony admission)
State v. Bernstein, 237 Ariz. 226 (Rule 702 gatekeeping; unreliable or flawed evidence goes to weight, not exclusion)
In re Leon G., 204 Ariz. 15 (construing "likely" as "highly probable" under SVP statute)
State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353 (credibility and weight of testimony are for the factfinder)