in Re Commitment of Michael Bohannan
Texas Supreme Court
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
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1996
- Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
- Broders v. HeiseTexas Supreme Court · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by118 opinions
- Bohannan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2017
- in Re Commitment of Charles Philip Anderson, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2013
- In re WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2017
- in Re Commitment of Lester Winkle, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2014
- In re HarrisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2017
113 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.