(1)Where a man committed as a sexually violent predator challenged the validity of the statute, the appellate court had jurisdiction over the appeal, and the judgment is affirmed because each of the constitutional claims was previously addressed by the Supreme Court of Missouri.
(2)Where a man found to be an SVP challenged the admission of expert testimony arguing that statements made to treatment providers were privileged, the judgment is affirmed because the statutory privilege waiver allows such experts to rely on and testify about statements made by the man to treatment providers.
(3)Where a man found to be an SVP challenged the denial of his request for additional discovery, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel discovery because the statute set for the discovery to which an SVP is entitled to prior to his probable cause hearing, and the evidence was sufficient to establish that he currently met the SVP definition.
Judgment is affirmed.
In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Adam Derby (MLW No. 71780/Case No. WD80594 – 25 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Ardini Jr., J.) Appealed from circuit court, Boone County, Daniels, J. (Chelsea R. Mitchell for appellant) (Mary H. Moore for respondent).