Legal Opinion

in Re Commitment of Michael Bohannan

Texas Supreme Court

Decided August 31, 2012No. 10-0605PublishedCited by 118 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hecht

We consider in this case what qualifications an expert must have to testify regarding whether a person is a sexually violent predator and therefore subject to civil commitment for outpatient treatment and supervision. Like the court of appeals, 1 though for different reasons, we conclude that the exclusion of expert testimony in this case requires a new trial.

I

A

The Texas Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act of 1999 defines a sexually violent predator (“SVP”) as “a repeat sexually violent offender [who] suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes the person likely to engage…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
  2. General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  3. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Broders v. HeiseTexas Supreme Court · 1996

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by118 opinions

  1. Bohannan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2017
  2. in Re Commitment of Charles Philip Anderson, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2013
  3. In re WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2017
  4. in Re Commitment of Lester Winkle, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2014
  5. In re HarrisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2017

113 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API