State v. Griffith

¶1 During voir dire in Daniel Griffith’s trial for commitment as a sexually violent predator, the court told the jury that commitment would be to a “secure facility,” that the facility was neither a penitentiary nor a part of the Department of Corrections, and that it was a “mental health facility.” Because the court’s comments were accurate, did not comment on the evidence, and did not *482lower the State’s burden of proof, and because Griffith’s challenges to the cross-examination of his expert and the admission of scientific evidence lack merit, we affirm his commitment.

*482¶2 The facts are known…