## Facts

- Douglas Girard and Eugene Mallard were separately convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child.
- After completing their criminal sentences, the State sought civil commitment of each under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (KSVPA).
- The KSVPA required proof that, due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder, the person is likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence.
- The State presented psychologist Dr. John Reid, who evaluated both respondents and opined they met SVP criteria.
- Reid’s risk opinions relied in part on actuarial risk-assessment instruments, including STATIC-99 and MnSOST-R, which report group recidivism rates rather than an individualized mathematical probability.
- Mallard offered an expert who acknowledged widespread use of actuarial tools but described ongoing controversy about their validity and proper weight.
- Girard and Mallard moved in limine to exclude Reid’s actuarial-based testimony as inadmissible scientific evidence under Kansas’s Frye general-acceptance standard; the trial courts denied the motions.
- The trial courts found each respondent to be an SVP and ordered commitment; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Kansas Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether actuarial risk-assessment instruments (STATIC-99 and MnSOST-R), when used to inform expert predictions of sexual-offense recidivism in KSVPA proceedings, constitute scientific evidence subject to the Frye general-acceptance test.
2. If Frye applies, whether the instruments and their use in SVP risk assessment are generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, making related expert testimony admissible.

## Decision

- The court held that STATIC-99 and MnSOST-R, as used to assess recidivism risk in SVP proceedings, are scientific evidence subject to Frye.
- The court held the record showed these actuarial instruments were generally accepted in the relevant professional community for SVP evaluations.
- The court affirmed the admission of Reid’s testimony; disputes about the instruments’ limits affected weight, not admissibility.
- The court affirmed the SVP commitment orders for Girard and Mallard.

## Legal Principles

- Under Kansas’s then-governing evidentiary rule, novel scientific evidence is admissible only if the underlying technique or principle has gained general acceptance in its relevant field (Frye).
- Actuarial risk-assessment instruments grounded in statistical methodology are scientific evidence when used to support expert opinions on recidivism risk.
- General acceptance does not require unanimity or the absence of professional criticism.
- Once general acceptance is shown, challenges to limitations, error rates, interpretation, or reliance on group data generally go to the weight of the evidence and are tested through cross-examination and competing experts, not categorical exclusion.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court treated actuarial SVP risk tools as scientific evidence governed by Frye, found STATIC-99 and MnSOST-R generally accepted for SVP evaluations, and upheld the trial courts’ admission of expert testimony and the resulting civil commitment orders.


In re Care & Treatment of Girard, 294 P.3d 236 (Kan. 2013)