Docket: Appellate Case No. 2017-001033; Opinion No. 27858
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina; January 15, 2019; South Carolina; State Supreme Court
Daryl Snow appeals his classification as a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, arguing that his diagnosis of Other Specified Personality Disorder (OSPD) does not meet the necessary constitutional and statutory criteria for such commitment. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The court of appeals upheld his commitment, affirming the trial court's decision.
Snow has a criminal history, including a 1996 conviction for assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct and a 2006 conviction for committing a lewd act upon a child, for which he received a fifteen-year prison sentence. Before his release, the State filed for his civil commitment, supported by expert testimony from Dr. Marie Gehle, Psy.D., who diagnosed him with OSPD. Dr. Gehle's evaluation involved a comprehensive review of Snow's background and criminal history, establishing that OSPD is characterized by symptoms causing significant distress or impairment but not meeting the criteria for any specific personality disorder.
Snow's motion for a directed verdict was denied after the jury determined he qualified as a sexually violent predator. The State argues that Snow did not preserve part of his argument regarding the legal sufficiency of the OSPD diagnosis for appellate review, claiming he only contested the sufficiency of the State's evidence. The Act requires a two-pronged test to classify someone as a sexually violent predator: a conviction for a sexually violent offense and the existence of a mental abnormality or personality disorder that increases the likelihood of future sexual violence if not confined.
The South Carolina Code Ann. 44-48-30(1)(a), (b) (2018) outlines three critical elements required to classify a person as a sexually violent predator: (1) a conviction for a sexually violent offense, (2) a mental abnormality or personality disorder, and (3) a likelihood to engage in sexual violence if not confined, posing a threat to public safety. The State acknowledges that Snow has preserved a challenge regarding the sufficiency of evidence for the third element but contends he did not contest the legality of using the OSPD diagnosis for the second element. The court finds the second and third elements are closely related, with the OSPD diagnosis often being key evidence for the third element.
During the trial, Snow's counsel argued that the OSPD diagnosis did not constitute a sufficient personality disorder and that the State failed to establish a causal link between this diagnosis and Snow's potential future offenses. The court holds that both arguments are preserved for review. The analysis of the second element reveals that the Act does not define "personality disorder" or limit the types acceptable for proof. Dr. Gehle testified that OSPD is recognized as a personality disorder under the DSM-5. Snow's argument that Dr. Gehle could not diagnose him with specific paraphilias is deemed irrelevant, as the Act only requires a personality disorder. Consequently, the court concludes that Dr. Gehle's diagnosis of Snow with OSPD meets the criteria for the second element under the Act.
Snow contests the adequacy of the State's evidence regarding the third element of the Sexually Violent Predator Act, asserting two main points. First, he claims the State did not sufficiently demonstrate that his diagnosis of Other Specified Personality Disorder (OSPD) correlates with a likelihood of committing sexual violence. Second, he argues that the evidence fails to establish a substantive due process requirement of a causal link between his OSPD and his inability to control his behavior, referencing prior cases that necessitate proof of "serious difficulty in controlling behavior."
However, the court found the evidence adequate to meet the third element. Dr. Gehle testified with certainty that Snow's OSPD renders him likely to commit sexual violence, supported by a Static-99R risk assessment indicating he is in a high-risk category for reoffending, with a 30.6% likelihood within five years and 39.7% within ten years. Dr. Gehle highlighted several dynamic risk factors associated with Snow, including extreme hostility towards women, a history of sexual violence, negative social influences, violent problem-solving tendencies, and a strong resistance to rules. She concluded Snow poses a danger to others, specifically women and girls, and deemed outpatient treatment insufficient.
The court affirmed that the totality of evidence showed Snow's OSPD indicates a likelihood of engaging in sexual violence and that he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Snow's commitment as a sexually violent predator under the Act was upheld. Additionally, his extensive criminal history, including convictions for serious offenses and multiple disciplinary infractions while in prison, reinforced the court's findings.
