Reed v. Wills

• Decision Date: 06 May 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 14-3548-CV-S-BCW-P
• Parties: BUSTER REED, Petitioner, v. ROBERT WILLS, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

BUSTER REED, Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT WILLS, Respondent.

Case No. 14-3548-CV-S-BCW-P

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

May 6, 2015

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner, a convicted state prisoner currently confined at the Sexual Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services Unit in the Southeast Missouri Medical Health Center in Farmington, Missouri, has filed pro se a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2013 adjudication and commitment as a sexually violent predator.

Petitioner asserts two (2) grounds for relief: (1) petitioner's right to due process was violated when the state's expert "was permitted to testify to a definition of 'mental abnormality' that was contrary" to Missouri law; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Doc. No. 1, pp. 5, 7. Respondent contends that both grounds are without merit.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner was determined to be a sexually violent predator in accordance with Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.480 on February 6, 2013, in the Greene County Circuit Court in Springfield, Missouri. The Missouri Sexually Violent Predator Act directs that sexually violent predators be committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health for care, custody, and control. The Missouri statutes provide for a release procedure when individuals meet statutory criteria. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 632.489, 632.501, 632.505. Petitioner filed a direct appeal of his commitment on May 19, 2014, which was denied. Resp. Ex. H; Resp. Ex. I.

Page 2

GROUND 1

In Ground 1, petitioner alleges that the trial court violated his due process rights when the State's expert allegedly testified to an improper definition of "mental abnormality." Doc. No. 1, p. 5. This claim was presented to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, which denied relief as follows:

Point I involves an objection and court ruling during testimony by the State's expert witness, Dr. Leavitt:

Q. Turning to the idea of a mental abnormality, what does Missouri law require you to look at to determine if someone has one of those?

A. Well, the definition is that a mental abnormality, which is a legal term, a legal definition of mental abnormality is that it's an emotional, an acquired -- or I should say an acquired or environmental condition that -- excuse me, acquired or hereditary condition that affects one's emotional or volitional capacity to a degree which predisposes an individual to engage in acts that would make himself a menace to the safety and welfare of -

MR. BANKS: Your Honor, I object. May we approach, please?

As relevant here, defense counsel (Mr. Banks) then objected that

Dr. Leavitt is misstating the law in Missouri. Nothing in our definition of mental abnormality has anything to do with being a menace to society. So, I would ask that the witness get the definition right and then the jury be instructed that that was not a correct definition of Missouri law.

MR. SCHLOTZHAUER: That is what is stated in the statute, but Mr. Banks is correct in that the Supreme Court decision in Thomas versus State changed that last line to say serious difficulty controlling behavior. So, I mean, it's right and it's wrong.

MR. BANKS: There's nothing in the current statute about being a menace.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. The attorney for the State should endeavor to make sure the witness quotes the law precisely to the extent he needs to quote the law to tell the jury the standard to which he was evaluating the Respondent. Beyond that,

Page 3

it can be covered in cross-examination. The request to instruct the jury is denied. Anything further?

MR. BANKS: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. We will be off the record.

PROCEEDINGS RETURNED TO OPEN COURT:

THE COURT: Mr. Schlotzhauer.

MR. SCHLOTZHAUER: Thank you.

Q. (By Mr. Schlotzhauer) Doctor, we were talking about the Missouri definition of a mental abnormality. Does that condition under mental abnormality have to predispose the person to commit sexually violent offenses?

A. Yes.

Q. And does it have to cause them serious difficulty controlling their behavior?

A. Yes.

[Petitioner]'s complaint about this ruling fails for several reasons. His counsel's twice-stated objection that "menace" plays no part in the statutory definition was not correct. On that basis alone, the court did not abuse its discretion in ruling as it

...