*1 liability may be an inability conducive to taxes,
pay reasonable In not that the two the Matter of the AND CARE conditions are one and the same. Larry Centene TREATMENT OF L. identify separate social COFFMAN, Appellant. liability conjunction that in with eco- No. SC 87803. liability nomic inability pay led to an Otherwise, reasonable taxes. para- Missouri, Supreme Court phrase principal opinion, “if evidence En Banc. to support finding [inability pay June 2007. reasonable could also constitute evi- taxes] support dence to a finding of social liabili-
ty, plain language of section 353.020
would be defeated.”
It be that the area ais social liabili-
ty and that evidence that it is could be
presented at some point. future It was presented record, on this however. reason,
For that I concur in principal
opinion’s determination to reverse the or-
der of condemnation because substantial
evidence support did not legislative
determination that the area constituted a liability.
social WHITE,
RONNIE L. Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully view, my dissent. Cen-
tene sufficient evidence from City
which the Clayton reasonably could
have determined that the redevelopment
area had become an “economic and social
liability.” This phrase demonstrates the
legislature’s recognition of the causal con-
nection between economics and social wel-
fare. A decline in inevitably the former latter,
undermines the and I would inter-
pret the statute as such. assuming Even
the two must separately, be evaluated I
would adopt Judge Stith’s definition of “so- liability”
cial but would that the conclude
City’s finding was supported by enough
evidence to withstand this Court’s review.
Therefore, I affirm would the order of
condemnation.
The statute is constitutional as written. two-part hearing procedure does not process equal violate due or the protection *3 clause. was not frivo- lous, and the trial court erred in denying hearing. without a The judgment is re- versed. The case is remanded. On re- mand, the court shall provide Coffman a hearing pursuant to section 632.498. History Fаcts and Procedural provides Missouri law that Coffman is to custody remain in the department mental health until such time as his “men- Queener, Emmett D. Office of the Public tal has so [he] Defender, Columbia, MO, for Appellant. large.” safe to be at Section 632.495.2.1 Nixon, Jeremiah (Jay) Gen., W. Atty. The law allows Coffman to for Charles Birmingham, Alana Barragan- release upon his own motion. Section Scott, Atty. Generals, Asst. City, Jefferson petitioned 632.498. Coffman for release MO, for Respondent. Mаrch 2006. The trial court denied his petition without a hearing. WOLFF, MICHAEL A. Chief Justice. In support release, of his Introduction Coffman reports of evalua- 2004, In January a St. Louis found experts. tions three Stephen Dr. Pe- Larry Coffman pedo- suffered from terson, psychiatrist, performed an initial philia and a personality disorder and de- examination and noted that Coffman’s termined that he was a violent medical “changed considerably” status had predator. Based on finding, Coffman sinсe his last assessment. Dr. Peterson was committed to a secure Missouri De- believed that Coffman suffered from car- partment of Mental facility. Health pulmonary diovascular and disorders and petitioned
Coffman for release based on recommended Coffman be evaluated his assertion that he was no sexu- by specialists in those two areas. ally violent predator because he was not performed Dr. Allen Soffer the cardio- more than not to commit a vascular examination. Dr. Soffer did not violent offense if released. The circuit any find suspected heart disease and court, division, probate denied his Coffman suffered from pulmonary prob- without a hearing. lems. Coffman challenges the pe- denial of his tition and challenges also the constitution- Dr. performed pulmonary Mark Briete ality of the 2004 amendment to section examination. Dr. Briete found that Coff- 632.498, procedure which sets forth the for man had lung functioning restricted determining whether a pulmonary lung disease. Dr. Briete noted predator is entitled to release. that Coffman suffered from shortness of statutory Supp. 1. All references are to RSMo unless otherwise noted. upon probable preponder-
breath exertion and a burden from cause to oxygen. and supplemental wheelchair ance of the unconstitutional. All three recommended that doctors Standard Review stop smoking weight and lose Dr. through diet exercise. Neither interpretation of a statute is opinion Dr. an gave Softer nor Briete as to an and is issue of law therefore reviewed whether and to what extent Coffman’s Barker, de novo. Barker v.
physical ability condition affect his would pre are Statutes to commit future violent offenses. constitutional, sumed and this Court to be *4 will read the statute a manner consis Dr. receiving of reports After Soffer possi tent with the constitution whenever Briete, completed and Dr. Dr. Peterson his State, 96, 102 ble. Murrell v. evaluation, that Coffman “se- concluding (Mo. 2007); Asbury banc v. 846 by Lombardi verely physically lung debilitated his 196, 199 disease,” becoming that he more medi- “is dangerous,” cally fragile and therefore less the circuit court Section 632.504 allows reversed,” damage that “cannot be hearing to dismiss a without eventually congestive that he would suffer “frivolous,” did and circuit court so failure, and he would require heart that can- here. The state that Coffman oxygen use supplemental the constant of challenge constitutionality not of sec- Dr. Peterson and a wheelchair. believed he a hear- tion 632.498because was denied that Coffman’s condition would ing that the circuit under statute in a home or nursing him to live similar court’s determination that his facility. care Dr. Peterson determined frivolous. Since Court concludes “[tjaken that, together, the clinical infor- and was not frivolous Larry that Mr. strongly mation indicates proper hearing, should have received longer likely as presents Coffman no more ap- procedures to that should address to commit acts of sexu- predatory than not ply hearing. physically al too violence because he is Certainly, thinking his debilitated. about Discussion much, changed has but he his offense not discharge procedure of 1. The two-trial physical will be unable alter his does section 632.498 not unconstitution- Therefore, any very much. victim out of ally com- proof shift the burden of to the immediate certainly reach is safe. He his unduly person mitted and is not burden- anyone and ex- cannot chase down cannot some feeling without ex- quickly ert himself hausted.” are to enact sex The states allowed ually provide statutes that peti-
The circuit court denied Coffman’s involuntary of for the civil commitment finding hearing, tion without who are determined to certain individuals petition was becаuse Coffman did frivolous confine society “if the dangerous demonstrating facts allege pursuant proper pro place ment takes changed or that his mental condition had evidentiary Kan standards.” cedures and abnormality existed. mental 346, 357, Hendricks, 521 117 sas v. U.S. appeals the trial court’s order Coffman (1997). 2072, 138L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Court, alleging that he entitled to this provided procedures has to Missouri the 2004 amendment designa- 632.498, evidentiary standards for the which increases his initial section invоluntary tion—and “probable civil commitment— cause” to a “pre- predators ponderance of the evidence.” ar- sections Coffman gues that unduly 632.480 to this raised burden is person 632.513. Once a has burdensome because it shifts the ultimate designated been a sexually preda- burden to the tor and committed to a mental health facil- released, show that he should be rather ity, department of mental health is than requiring the state to demonstrate required to еvaluate his mental condition why he should not Although be released. annually. Section 632.498. There are two his release was filed after the 2004 methods which a violent preda- effect, amendment took sought tor can obtain release after he has been release provisions under the of the 2000 First, committed. if the director of the statute, claiming that the 2004 amendment department of mental health determines was unconstitutional. person’s “that the mental has рerson so that the is not This Court considered a similar due commit released,” acts of sexual violence argument cess in In the Matter the Care then the director Schottel, must authorize per- and Treatment Wilbur *5 (Mo. petition 2005). son to the court for release. Sec- S.W.3d 836 banc That case tion 632.501. The circuit court then holds determined the 2000version of section a hearing constitutional, 632.498 was despite where the requir- state has the burden ing sexually to show that the violent petitioner predator the to make should not be the showing. initial released. Id. Schottel received a hearing judge before the trial on peti- Second, if department the of mental tion, judge but the determined at health does not conclude that sexually the hearing that provide prob- Schottel did not violent predator released, should be he is able cause to believe that he would not nevertheless free for his release and, therefore, reoffend denied Schottel a at any time. Section 632.498. Coffman second trial. at Id. 840. Schottel attempted to secure release under this argued that required the statute him to provision. Under the 2000 version of the prove that he “would not” reoffend and statute, the circuit court was higher this was a him burden on than hearing set a on the unless the required by the state to obtain his frivolous, and, is if the court deter- initial commitment. Id. 841. Schottel mined that probable there was сause to argued that the statute therefore violated person released, believe that the should be due process. rejected Id. This Court then a trial trial, was to be held. At this “hyper-technical” Schottel’s reading of the which by jury, be the state had the statute’s term to him prove burden prove beyond a reasonable absolutely that he not” “will reoffend. Id. doubt person the should not be re- Rather, at 841-42. this Court held that Thus, leased. the provided 2000 statute a statute, context,” the when “read first, two-part test: person the committed that, vides “at hearing, legis- the initial the must show probable why cause he should merely lature judge intends the to act in a released; second, the state must show gatekeeper role. He or she not is asked to beyond why reasonable doubt should reach a final person’s decision as to the not. danger to the community or whether the Section 632.498 was amended in 2004. person sexually predator], is still viоlent [a The amendment showing raises the initial but to ‘probable determine whether cause ’” that must be made sexually the violent person exists to believe that the should (Emphasis origi- By changing be released. Id. at 842 release. the from standard nal). preponderance of the probable cause to evidence, ini the the legislature increased Schottel, the Under initial be- sexually preda tial on the burden the trial not the judge fore final control- tor. decision, ling requirement and the that the sexually predator proba- meet the the 2004 amend- unduly cause is not it ble burden unconstitutional. ment burdensome because takes the trial from one where the first case, therefore, question The in this judge merely triable determines whether sexually the in the vio- whether increase weighs exist to the judge issues one where burden, predator’s probable lent from and evaluates the evidence. preponderance cause the changes analysis. procedure unduly The bur- here not an in- important densome. The state has “probable terms cause” society in protecting terest “preponderance of evidence” are violent offenders. The defined has opportunity terms, however, statute. have well- Those any the court for release at time. When meanings. legal understood When statu in- considering important underlying tory legislature, term not defined terest, ability vio- оrdinary apply meaning courts review, frequent lent to obtain dictionary. term as found in the Cook unduly provide is not burdensome to Co., Revenue, Tractor Inc. v. Dir. only those “gatekeeper” to ensure that “Proba *6 make a a legitimate who claim can obtain ble cause” is defined as: “A reasonable sexually trial. the violent Requiring ground supposing for that a criminal claim by pre- to his a establish charge is well-founded.” Webster’s Third unduly ponderance of the evidеnce is not (1993). Dictionary New International burdensome, standard, and if he meets this defined, “Preponderance” in as part, is entitled to he is release unless the “superiority weight.” in also Id. See a prove can that he is not so entitled (1990) 6th Dictionary, Black’s Law Edition higher standard. evidence,” of defining “preponderance the Coffman also the amend- “greater weight or part, as of “creat- ment is unconstitutional because it con evidence which is more credible and a the must ed bench trial which individual the The vincing ‘prepon mind.... word in order another trial get win where something than derance’ means more discharge or will be continued commitment it ‘weight’; superiority weight, denotes a of However, finally decided.” the two-trial outweighing.” or Id. system the amendment existed before 2004 probable The main difference between a and was found to be constitutional preponderance a of the cause standard аnd Schottel; only change the the initial is probable cause evidence standard is Coffman must reach order burden weigh not the does fact-finder trial. to the proceed second v. conflicting evidence. See Jamison discharge procedure not vi- 2. The does Family Servs., State, Dept. Div. Social of of Equal the olate Protection Clause (Mo. ervs., 218 411 banc S.W.3d S States Constitu- Missouri and United 2007). The evidence preponderance of the tions standard, where weighing standard the fact-finder consider whether the The States Constitution must United deny to weight supports state shall ... greater provides “[n]o of the evidence
445 any person jurisdiction equal argument ignores per within This the fact that its Const, of protection sexually the laws.” U.S. as sons who are committed violent Similarly, amend. XIV. the Missouri Con are predators they because are committed provides, persons stitution “all are created society. Id. “distinctively dangеrous” to equal and are equal rights entitled Because the basis commitment of sexu Const, under law.” Mo. opportunity ally violent is different predators I, equal sec. 2. protection art. Missouri’s commitments, general there re civil is no provides protections clause the same as quirement predators United States Constitution. Bernat v. exactly as rights be afforded the same State, (Mo. 2006). banc 863 persons under general committed civil Bernat, standard. 194 See S.W.3d 868- The dеtermination whether a (discussing hearing procedures that are protection equal statute violates the clause different for civil commitments and sexual two-part analysis. the Matter of commitments). ly re The Norton, Care and Treatment quirement that a right demonstrate his initial to release step is a first determination of whether the preponderance of evidence is narrow operates classification to the disadvantage ly tailorеd to interest in keeping the state’s suspect impinges of a class or on a funda people if it committed is more than so, right. mental Id. If the classification not commit they will subject scrutiny strict and will if crimes released. The amended statute upheld necessary to a compelling the equal protection does not violate not, state interest. Id. If the classifica clause. upheld rationally tion it is related to a
legitimate state
Id.
interest.
3. Coffman’s
was nоt frivolous
grant-
and the circuit
erred in
This
previously
Court has
deter
ing
Coffman a
on his release
mined that
violent predator
subject
scrutiny
law is
to strict
right
liberty.
affects
fundamental
*7
The trial court found that Coff-
Id.; Bernat, 194
868. Strict
man’s
for release was frivolous
scrutiny
applies,
therefore
and the statute
allege
because he did not
that his mental
only
upheld
will
be
is necessary
to a
changed.
urges
condition had
The state
compelling state
and narrowly
interest
that this result
correct because section
is
Norton,
protect
drawn to
that
interest.
provides
involuntary
632.495
that
commit
sexually
er
committed
basis
preliminary showing
predators
must make a
to a
commitment оf
violent
trial
‘warranting’
society
of facts
protect
dangerous per-
second
trial[.]”
define
petitions,
this is a
on the
does not
“frivolous.”
sons. Because
restriction
defined,
part,
“Frivolous” is
in
as “of little
right
liberty,
may
fundamental
of
the state
importance: having
weight or
no basis
only commit
who meet certain cri-
persons
Third
or fact.”
New Inter-
recognized— law
Webster’s
generally
teria. Courts have
(1993).
Dictionary
national
See also
both
con-
(1990),
Dictionary,
Law
6th Editiоn
Black’s
general
text and in the
commitment con-
clearly
pleading
“a
is ‘frivolous’when it is
may
person
only
text —that a
be involun-
”
pe-
on
face....
insufficient
its
tarily
dangerous
if
committed
he
both
allege
tition was sufficient to
a basis
has
some mental illness or abnormali-
longer
that
no
dangerous;
believe
he is
Louisiana,
71, 77,
ty. Foucha v.
504 U.S.
therefore,
a hearing
he is entitled to
before
(1992);
1780,
112 S.Ct.
While states and The record demonstrated follows the de novo standard of review for mental condition statutory changed: had not he had interpretation in finding that sec- *9 treatment; constitutional, completed tion 632.498 is he had confine- it fails to ment violations that apply appropriate pornographic consider or included standard materials; for weighing engaged inap- review the trial court’s he was seen petition. dismissal of Coffman’s propriate sexual rubbing his behavior — statutory Supp. 1. All references are to RSMo unless otherwise indicated. resident; leg hand on the of another he stated, “I
had want to change;” don’t planned
he to leave Missouri for a state a sexually
without law.
Further, had the trial court even consid- dangerousness required
ered as Coffman’s majority, Coffman’s failed longer posed danger
to show that no he society. cardiologist pulmo-
nary specialists on commented condition,
continuing physical but made no physical
assessments of how his limitations acting him on
prevented his mental
abnormality to future acts of sexu- prevent condition, Despite physical
al violence. plans job to return to his
Coffman stated driving
truck released. Coffman’s when
expert’s attestation that Coffman was no
longer dangerous could persons
harm in “his immediate reach” past
failed consider that Coffman’s sex-
ual acts chase: he molested 2-year old old.
10-month and a
The trial should not be convicted abusing denying its discretion Coff- frivolous under
man’s as section
632.504. PROPERTIES, INC.,
PETROL
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. COMPANY,
STEWART TITLE d/b/a Guaranty Company, and
Stewart Title Company, Defen-
Lincoln Land Title
dants-Respondents.
No. 27661. Appeals,
Missouri Court District,
Southern
Division Two.
May 2007.