subject: Rape Sodomy Virginia Sexually Violent Predator [print this page] Rape Sodomy Virginia Sexually Violent Predator
Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 689 S.E.2d 748689 S.E.2d 748
In 1990, Steven L. Lawrence (Lawrence) was convicted of, among other things, rape and sodomy and sentenced to a total of forty-five years imprisonment, with five years suspended. Prior to his scheduled release from incarceration, the Commonwealth of Virginia filed a petition pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), Code 37.2-900 et seq., requesting Lawrence's civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. At the outset of Lawrence's civil commitment trial, the Commonwealth sought to introduce into evidence a sexually violent predator forensic psychological evaluation prepared by Dr. Ilona Gravers, a licensed clinical psychologist. Lawrence objected to the introduction of the document, arguing that the evaluation report was hearsay because it included information from police reports concerning various unadjudicated allegations of sexual misconduct and references to a previous polygraph test.
Pursuant to Code 8.01-401.1, an expert witness may rely upon "facts, circumstances or data made known to such witness" in formulating an opinion; those "facts, circumstances or data . . . , if of a type normally relied upon by others in the particular field of expertise in forming opinions and drawing inferences, need not be admissible in evidence." Neither of these statutes, however, allows for the introduction of otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence during the direct examination of an expert witness merely because the expert relied on the hearsay information in formulating an opinion. The Court held that an expert may not "express an opinion that is speculative and unreliable as a matter of law." "Expert testimony founded upon assumptions that have no basis in fact is not merely subject to refutation by cross-examination or by counter-experts; it is inadmissible."
The Court observed that in the instant case, evidence indicates that Dr. Gravers, in forming her expert opinions, considered as true unsubstantiated allegations contained in police reports she read. Dr. Gravers stated that the unadjudicated allegations of sexual misconduct contained in the police reports led her to the conclusion that Lawrence had a pattern of sexualaggression and intimacy deficits. Dr. Gravers also stated that while her diagnosis of paraphilia, not otherwise specified, was primarily based on Lawrence's two convictions, her conclusion that Lawrence had an antisocial personality disorder, not otherwise specified, depended on the allegations in the police reports and Lawrence's pattern of antisocial behavior, as shown through those allegations. The Court held that Dr. Gravers' expert testimony did not have an adequate factual foundation to the extent it was dependent upon assuming the truth of the hearsay allegations concerning Lawrence's past sexual misconduct. The Court ruled that Dr. Gravers' opinions, which were dependent upon the truth of hearsay allegations unsupported by evidence properly presented at trial, were speculative and unreliable as a matter of law and should not have been admitted into evidence.
