Opinion ID: 1449169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Do probable cause findings limit the State's evidence at trial?

Text: Tyson maintains that the State's case against an SVP can only rest on evidence found by the probate division at the probable cause hearing to be sufficiently clear and convincing in itself to support a probable cause determination that the person is an SVP. He moved to prohibit pedophilia evidence from his trial because the probate division had expressly held that the State had failed to show the duration of Tyson's attraction to children at the probable cause hearing and, thus, had not shown probable cause to believe Tyson was a pedophile at that hearing. The trial court, however, determined that, at a civil commitment trial, the SVP Act does not limit the State's presentation of particular theories supporting a finding that a person is an SVP to only those theories proved at a prior probable cause hearing. At the probable cause stage of SVP commitments, the probate division is tasked with acting as a gatekeeper merely to determine if the State's evidence raises a triable issue of fact. Martineau v. State, 242 S.W.3d 456, 460 (Mo.App. 2007) (citing Schottel, 159 S.W.3d at 845). This gatekeeping role does not allow the court to weigh evidence or make credibility determinations. Id. Rather, the court's duty is to determine if probable cause exists to believe that the alleged offender is an SVP under the definition of that term in section 632.480(5), not under any precise theory suggested by the State's evidence at the probable cause hearing. Nothing in the SVP Act articulates that probable cause to bind a suspected SVP over for trial requires acceptance of a particular diagnosis of his mental abnormality. Where there is probable cause that a suspected offender is an SVP under any theory, the commitment proceedings against him advance to the trial stage. The SVP Act contemplates that additional discovery will be accomplished after the probable cause hearing. Section 632.489.4 mandates that an alleged SVP who is bound over after a probable cause determination will undergo additional psychiatric or psychological evaluation before his trial. Evaluations conducted pursuant to section 632.489.4 can include interview[s with] family and associates [of] the person being examined, as well as victims and witnesses of the person's offense or offenses, review of records relied on by previous evaluators, and consideration of any police reports related to sexual offenses by the suspected SVP. Section 632.489.4. Additionally, the SVP Act provides that [i]n order to protect the public, relevant information and records relating to a suspected SVP are to be provided to the State for use in determining whether a person is or continues to be [an SVP]. Sec. 632.510, RSMo 2000. [7] Section 632.510's mention of providing relevant information and records with an intent to protect the public demonstrates that the SVP Act intends that a thorough assessment of an alleged offender's history and likelihood to reoffend be considered when making the case for his commitment as an SVP. Because the SVP Act contemplates that more information about a suspected SVP will be acquired after a probable cause determination is made in his case, it would be illogical to limit evidence at trial only to diagnoses specifically accepted by the probate division at the probable cause hearing. The State should not be constrained by the probate division's probable cause findings from presenting relevant evidence about whether an alleged offender suffers any mental abnormality that makes him more likely than not to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not committed as an SVP. Tyson attempts to equate probable cause proceedings under the SVP Act with probable cause proceedings in criminal matters. His arguments are unpersuasive, however, because it is clear that SVP Act proceedings are civil in nature. Elliott, 215 S.W.3d at 93 (Missouri's SVP statute is civil in nature.). This Court also does not find persuasive Tyson's arguments that his due process rights were violated by the State's introduction of pedophilia evidence at his trial. Tyson asserts that the State's position advocates a wide-open free-for-all in persuading that a suspect qualifies as an SVP, but there is no doubt that he had adequate notice that the State's case against him included the theory that he suffered pedophilia. Even after his probable cause hearing, the State's discovery and expert evaluations focused on evidence of pedophilia. This Court finds no error in the trial court's decision to permit evidence of pedophilia at Tyson's trial.