Turner v. State
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 689
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant, starting at age 14, exhibited sexual attraction to prepubescent children and committed multiple offenses against young girls and relatives.
- He married, had two children, then was divorced due to sexual aggression, pornography, and coercive behavior.
- Before release, the Attorney General filed for civil commitment as an SVP; the court ordered an evaluation.
- Dr. Simmons diagnosed Pedophilia and concluded Appellant was more likely than not to reoffend if not confined, using adjusted actuarial methods (STATIC-99 plus dynamic factors).
- Dr. Simmons testified Appellant’s risk was increased by dynamic factors; she believed the STATIC-99 underestimated risk; Appellant’s own statements and MOSOP termination supported higher risk.
- The defense presented Dr. Flesher, who relied on STATIC-99 alone and opined Appellant was not more likely than not to reoffend; a jury found Appellant to be an SVP and the trial court committed him to the Department.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove SVP | Turner contends Simmons' dynamic-factor method invalidates rating. | State argues credibility issues are for the jury; evidence supports SVP. | Evidence supported SVP beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Credibility and weight of expert testimony | Dr. Simmons' testimony should be disbelieved. | Jury may credit Dr. Simmons over defense expert. | Credibility for the jury; it determined which expert to credit. |
| Use of dynamic factors to adjust STATIC-99 score | Dynamic factors appropriately adjust reoffense risk. | No error in relying on STATIC-99; no adjustment needed. | Dr. Simmons' approach admissible; supported by evidence. |
| Admissibility vs sufficiency framing | Challenge to admissibility should be raised before trial. | Admissibility issues were not properly raised; evidence admissible. | Proper procedural treatment; sufficiency analysis stands. |
| Standard of review for SVP determination | Insufficient evidence is enough to negate SVP. | If any probative evidence supports it, SVP finding should stand. | Twelve reasonable jurors could find SVP beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cokes v. State, 183 S.W.3d 281 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (defines SVP standard and evidentiary framework)
- O'Hara v. State, 331 S.W.3d 319 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (admissibility vs sufficiency not to be conflated)
- State v. Crawford, 68 S.W.3d 406 (Mo. Banc. 2002) (credibility of witness is for fact-finder)
- In re Spencer, 171 S.W.3d 813 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (no complete absence of probative facts supports judgment)
- Barlow v. State, 250 S.W.3d 725 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (rebuttal of expert reasoning is reweighing evidence)
- In re A.B., 334 S.W.3d 746 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (admissibility upheld; expert testimony credible)