Where a man committed as a sexually violent predator argued that the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the state’s objection to cross examination of an expert, the man did not explain how exclusion of the testimony impacted the outcome of his case, so the judgment is affirmed.
Concurring opinion by Sheffield, J.: “Although it is proper to deny review where an appellant fails to make an argument regarding a portion of the analysis critical to a claim, our sister districts often note the rule before making a complete analysis of the issue…In cases where important interests are at stake, this practice assures the parties that their claims are receiving a minimum level of review in spite of any errors their attorneys may have made. I believe the
liberty interest in a civil commitment proceeding under Sections 632.480 to 632.513 warrants such analysis.”
Judgment is affirmed.
In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Claude Hasty (MLW No. 67095/Case No. SD33018 – 8 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, per curiam) Appealed from circuit court, Dent County, Baird, J. (Erika Renee Eliason, Columbia, for appellant) (Mary Highland Moore, Columbia, for respondent).
Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)