 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Care and Treatment of Lieurance2/19/2004
iny and this Court must determine whether it is necessary to accomplish a compelling state interest. If not, review is limited to determining whether the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Id. at 3. Applying this analysis, the Norton court found that while SVP's are not a suspect class, "civil commitment of persons so classified impinges on the fundamental right of liberty." Id . at 4. The court held, therefore, that strict scrutiny applied to the appellant's claim, and that to "pass strict scrutiny review, a governmental intrusion must be justified by a 'compelling state interest' and must be narrowly drawn to express the compelling state interest at stake." Id. (quoting Herndon v. Tuhey , 857 S.W.2d 203, 211 (Mo. banc 1993) (Covington, J., dissenting)).
The Norton court went on to hold that the "secure confinement of persons adjudicated to be SVP[']s, as provided in [the SVP law], is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest." Id . at 5. As a basis for this holding, the court opined that the State has a compelling interest in protecting the public from crime and that this interest "justifies the different treatment of those persons adjudicated as [SVP's] when, as determined by the legislature, such mental abnormality makes them distinctively dangerous because of the substantial probability that they will commit future crimes of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility." Id . at 6. The court also noted the "elaborate, step-by-step procedure" in the SVP law "conferring on the suspected predator a number of rights enjoyed by defendants in criminal prosecutions," as well as the mandated " nnual examinations and court review" afforded SVP's, in holding that the SVP law was narrowly tailored to meet the State's compelling interest. Id.
The Supreme Court of Missouri having found the SVP law not to be invalid in the face of an equal protection claim virtually identical to that presented by Appellant, his second point is without merit and must be denied.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|