Opinion ID: 1449169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was it error to allow testimony regarding actuarial instruments?

Text: Tyson argues that the trial court erred in admitting, over his objections, testimony by the State's psychiatric expert relating to two actuarial instrumentsthe Static-99 and the MnSOST-Rhe had applied to Tyson. Tyson admits that actuarial instrument testimony was previously found admissible in SVP proceedings in Goddard v. State, 144 S.W.3d 848, 851-55 (Mo.App.2004). He contends, however, that Goddard only addressed the reliability of experts' use of actuarial instruments. He argues that his complaints about the instruments center on their lack of relevance because they did not pertain specifically to his risk to reoffend and because they do not distinguish between sexually violent offenses and other sexual offenses. In Murrell v. State an accused SVP similarly challenged the use of actuarial instruments in his case, arguing that the instruments were not relevant to his individual conduct. 215 S.W.3d 96, 111-12 (Mo. banc 2007). This Court, however, found that [i]f the facts and data are shown to be reasonably relied upon by experts in the field, they are necessarily relevant to the issue the expert is addressing. Id. at 112. Murrell concluded that the instruments are the type reasonably relied on by experts in the field and meet standards for admissibility of expert testimony under section 490.065.3. Id. at 110-11. Murrell discusses, however, that testimony as to the results of an actuarial instrument as applied to an individual standing alone should be combined with an independent clinical assessment of the accused SVP. Id. at 112. This Court stated that [t]estimony incorporating the results of actuarial instruments is admissible in cases involving the civil commitment of an SVP when the instruments are used in conjunction with a full clinical evaluation. Id. As in Murrell, the State's expert in Tyson's case used the challenged actuarial instruments in conjunction with a full clinical evaluation. The State's expert testified to reasons beyond the actuarial assessments that led him to believe that Tyson was at risk of reoffending, including: he had failed to complete a sex offender treatment program, his history of sexual and non-sexual criminality, his history of drug and alcohol abuse, and his diagnoses of pedophilia and personality disorder. Further, the expert explained that the instruments [do] not discriminate between violent and non-violent offenses, and he explained how he used the instruments to rate Tyson's risk to reoffend. Under these facts, Tyson fails to show that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing evidence related to the actuarial instruments.