Section 16.64 Constitutional Challenges

• Library: Estate Administration 2014 Supp

1. (§16.64) Constitutional Challenges

The MoSVP law was patterned after the Kansas act, see §16.61, supra, which in turn was patterned after Washington statutes. In Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 (2001), a respondent in a Washington SVP case argued that the implementation of the Washington SVP law, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 71.09.010 et seq. (Westlaw through 2009 legislation), against him was punitive in nature and, therefore, converted the civil nature of the statute to criminal, which violated his double jeopardy rights. The Court held that a civil statute cannot be deemed punitive as applied to a single individual, so criminal rights were not invoked. The respondent’s remedy lay in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

In Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002), the Court held that, before a person can be held as an SVP, the constitutional safeguards of human liberty require proof that a person has a “serious difficulty in controlling behavior” that causes risk of harm to public health and safety. Consistent with Crane, the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled that jury instructions must require a finding of a “serious difficulty in controlling [the respondent’s] behavior.” Thomas v. State, 74 S.W.3d 789 (Mo. banc 2002). This resulted in a number of reversals and remands for new trials. See:

· In re Care & Treatment of Shafer, 100 S.W.3d 819 (Mo. banc 2003)

· Care & Treatment of Daily, 100 S.W.3d 809 (Mo. banc 2003)

· Care & Treatment of O’Hara v. State, 100 S.W.3d 808 (Mo. banc 2003)

· Care & Treatment of Francis v. State, 100 S.W.3d 807 (Mo. banc 2003)

· Care & Treatment of Amonette v. State, 98 S.W.3d 593 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003)

· In re Care & Treatment of Henson, 97 S.W.3d 67 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002)

· Care & Treatment of Coffman v. State, 92 S.W.3d 245 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002)

· Care & Treatment of Love v. State, 90 S.W.3d 236 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002)

· Care & Treatment of Smith v. State, 83 S.W.3d 116 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002)

This proof is required in bench-tried cases as well as jury trials. In re Care & Treatment of Spencer, 103 S.W.3d 407 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003).

Respondents have raised other due process objections, all of which have failed. See:

· Care & Treatment of Murrell v. State, 215 S.W.3d 96 (Mo. banc 2007) (due process only requires finding of present dangerousness and not precise time of future dangerousness)

· In re Care & Treatment of Coffman, 225 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. banc 2007) (imposition of preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof on a

...