O'Hara v. State
331 S.W.3d 319
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- O'Hara challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support his commitment under Missouri's SVP law, focusing on prong 2 (likelihood of re-offense).
- The State bears a two-pronged burden: (1) existence of a qualifying condition affecting emotional/volitional control and (2) likely predatory re-offense if not confined.
- Dr. Kent Franks testified that O'Hara fits the SVP criteria and is more likely than not to commit predatory acts if not confined and to commit future offenses without treatment and supervision.
- Dr. Franks’ test results and bases for his opinions were explained at trial, and his testimony was admitted without objection.
- The court held that there is no complete absence of probative fact supporting the verdict and that admissibility distinctions do not convert sufficiency challenges into objections to weight.
- The court affirmed the judgment, denying O'Hara's sufficiency challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports likelihood of re-offense (prong 2). | O'Hara argues lack of probative re-offense evidence. | O'Hara contends Dr. Franks' testimony is speculative and insufficient. | Evidence sufficient; Dr. Franks' testimony supports likelihood to re-offend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martineau v. State, 242 S.W.3d 456 (Mo.App.2007) (two-pronged SVP burden—condition and likelihood of re-offense)
- Washington by Washington v. Barnes Hospital, 897 S.W.2d 611 (Mo. banc 1995) (admissibility versus submissibility of expert testimony)
- Lee v. Hiler, 141 S.W.3d 517 (Mo.App.2004) (weight and admissibility of expert evidence)
- Lacy v. Federal Mogul, 278 S.W.3d 691 (Mo.App.2009) (cannot rely on admissibility to raise sufficiency challenge)