Opinion ID: 1870967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: exclusion of licensed social worker's testimony

Text: Mr. Bernat also argues the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the state to read into evidence the testimony of Linda Kelly, a licensed social worker. In support, he argues that because section 632.483, RSMo Supp.2003, requires that a psychiatrist or psychologist must offer an opinion that a person meets the definition of an SVP in order to begin the commitment process, only a psychiatrist or psychologist can offer a diagnosis at trial that a person is an SVP, citing, Johnson v. State, 58 S.W.3d 496, 499 (Mo. banc 2001). Johnson did state that an associate psychologist was not competent to diagnose mental illness at trial. Id. In so holding, this Court stated, [p]ersons who are licensed medical doctors practicing psychiatry, licensed psychologists, and licensed social workers are permitted by law to evaluate persons and make diagnoses of mental disorders. Id. (emphasis added). The Court further noted that `[c]linical social work' is defined in section 337.600 to include `diagnosis, treatment, prevention and amelioration of mental and emotional conditions.' Id. The parties do not dispute that Ms. Kelly was a licensed social worker. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing her testimony. It is within the trial court's discretion to admit or exclude an expert's testimony. State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593, 603 (Mo. banc 1991); Johnson, 58 S.W.3d at 499.