Legal Opinion
In Re the Care & Treatment of McCracken
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided July 23, 2001No. 25323PublishedCited by 53 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PLEICONES, Justice:
Appellant was found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) by a jury and committed to the Department of Mental Health (DMH) for control, care, and treatment pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 44-48-100 (Supp.2000). He has appealed, raising both trial errors and constitutional issues. We affirm.
A. Mootness
The first issue we address is the State’s contention that appellant’s release from DMH’s custody during the pendency of this appeal renders it moot. Under the SVP Act, 1 (Act) a person who is committed pursuant to the Act is entitled to an annual review of his status, §…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Kansas v. HendricksSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Seling v. YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Wilder Corp. v. WilkeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
- Taylor v. MedenicaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
- Byrd v. Irmo High SchoolSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- State v. GasterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
- In Re the Treatment & Care of LuckabaughSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
- RFT Management Co. v. Tinsley & Adams L.L.P.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2012
- State v. McKnightSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
- State v. AdkinsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2003
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.