in Re Commitment of Michael Bohannan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that only fact issue to be resolved by the factfinder is whether a persón has behavioral abnormality
• holding that only fact issue to be resolved by the factfinder is whether a person has behavioral abnormality
• explaining that “[a]n increased likelihood of misconduct indicates a predisposition, and a predisposition threatens increased likelihood”
• noting that in forming their opinions, one of the State’s experts, a psychologist, and the defendant’s expert, a licensed sex offender treatment provider, had relied on the Static-99 in forming their opinions
• determining that section 841.021(d) is an administrative task and not a jurisdictional prerequisite
• holding trial court abused its discretion in excluding expert’s testimony and noting that “[t]he trial court’s discretion in determining whether an expert is qualified to testify on a matter is broad but not unbounded”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).