Case Name: Herman McQUEEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-07-08
Citations: 848 So. 2d 1220
Docket Number: No. 1D01-3794
Parties: Herman McQUEEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: BOOTH, J., concurs; BROWNING, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 848
Pages: 1220–1222

Head Matter:
Herman McQUEEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D01-3794.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
July 8, 2003.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Robert S. Friedman, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Charlie Crist, Attorney General; Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
POLSTON, J.
Appellant Herman McQueen seeks the reversal of the Order of Adjudication and Commitment against him under the Jimmy Ryce Act, see § 394.910-394.931, Fla. Stat. (2001)(entitled "Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators"). Appellant argues that the Jimmy Ryce Act is unconstitutional in various ways, but the Florida Supreme Court has recently rejected those challenges. See Westerheide v. State, 831 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2002).
Appellant also argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude expert testimony concerning Appellant's likelihood to reoffend because the experts used actuarial instruments that do not meet the test under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923) for admissibility of scientific evidence. In this case, we decline to resolve the issues of whether the actuarial instruments used in sexually violent predator commitment evaluations are subject to a Frye analysis and whether they meet the Frye test because, if admission of the actuarial evidence was error, we conclude that on the record before us the error was harmless. Green v. State, 826 So.2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Williams v. State, 841 So.2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, J., concurs; BROWNING, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion.
. The experts relied on Appellant's admissions and performed clinical reviews in addition to using actuarial instruments. The Appellant, rather than the State, emphasized the results of the actuarial instruments in closing arguments.