In the Matter of Bilton ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                      THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Micah A.
    Bilton, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2017-001464
    Appeal From Horry County
    William H. Seals, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
    Opinion No. 5775
    Heard June 16, 2020 – Filed October 14, 2020
    REVERSED AND REMANDED
    Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
    Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, and Senior
    Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe,
    both of Columbia, for Respondent.
    HEWITT, J.: The State called one witness during Micah Allen Bilton's trial for
    civil commitment as an alleged sexually violent predator. That witness—a
    forensic psychologist—was permitted to testify as an expert regarding a
    controversial test performed on Bilton she neither administered nor observed. She
    also shared the test results with the jury.
    The witness had not reviewed the raw data the test produced. She also did not
    know whether the full testing protocol used on Bilton had been peer-reviewed.
    The expert explained she had confidence in the lab that had performed the test and
    she saw no basis for questioning its results. She used these test results as part of
    the basis, but not the sole basis, of her opinion that Bilton was a sexually violent
    predator.
    Bilton lodged several objections to this evidence, but we deal only with his
    argument that the testifying psychologist served as a "conduit" that improperly
    allowed the jury to consider the out-of-court test, which was inadmissible hearsay,
    with no baseline demonstration that the test was reliable. We agree. Thus, we
    reverse Bilton's adjudication as a sexually violent predator and remand for a new
    trial.
    FACTS
    Bilton molested his four-year-old stepsister when he was fifteen and his six-year-old
    niece when he was seventeen. The first incident resulted in a guilty plea to assault
    and battery of a high and aggravated nature. The second resulted in a guilty plea to
    criminal solicitation of a minor.
    The State subsequently brought this action seeking Bilton's civil commitment under
    the Sexually Violent Predator Act. That act is codified at sections 44-48-10 through
    44-48-170 of the South Carolina Code (2018). The trial on this civil charge occurred
    in June 2017. Bilton was twenty-two.
    At the start of trial, Bilton moved in limine to prohibit Dr. Amy Swan—the
    court-appointed evaluator and the State's sole expert—from testifying about a
    penile plethysmograph or "PPG" test that a third party performed on Bilton at Dr.
    Swan's request. After a proffer of Dr. Swan's testimony, the circuit court ruled
    there was a sufficient foundation for her testimony's admission.
    When she testified to the jury, Dr. Swan explained that although this PPG
    documented Bilton's greatest level of sexual arousal was to adult women in a
    consensual encounter, the test also showed Bilton demonstrated "deviant arousal,"
    the most significant of which was to teen females in a coercive or rape scenario.
    Dr. Swan also said the test revealed Bilton was aroused in varying scenarios by
    preschool females, preschool males, grammar school females, and teenage males.
    Dr. Swan said sexual interest in children, as measured by the PPG, is "the one
    factor that carries the highest risk for committing another sexual crime."
    ISSUE
    Whether the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Swan to testify regarding the PPG test
    results.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    The standard of review for evidentiary rulings is very deferential. "The admission
    or exclusion of evidence is a matter within the trial court's sound discretion, and an
    appellate court may only disturb a ruling admitting or excluding evidence upon a
    showing of a 'manifest abuse of discretion accompanied by probable prejudice.'"
    State v. Commander, 
    396 S.C. 254
    , 262–63, 
    721 S.E.2d 413
    , 417 (2011) (quoting
    State v. Douglas, 
    369 S.C. 424
    , 429, 
    632 S.E.2d 845
    , 848 (2006)). "An abuse of
    discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary
    support or are controlled by an error of law." State v. Pagan, 
    369 S.C. 201
    , 208,
    
    631 S.E.2d 262
    , 265 (2006).
    ANALYSIS
    We begin by briefly discussing the statutory law and the test in question before
    addressing the parties' arguments. The Sexually Violent Predator Act provides that
    once a court determines there is probable cause, the court must appoint a qualified
    expert to evaluate whether a particular person is a sexually violent predator. See
    S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-80(D) (2018). Here, that evaluator—Dr. Swan—ordered
    Bilton to undergo a PPG test as part of her evaluation. Another person—either Dr.
    William Burke or someone working at his facility—performed the PPG.
    The PPG measures changes in blood flow to the male sex organ while the test
    subject views a series of visual and auditory stimulants corresponding to different
    ages, genders, and scenarios. Certain levels of increased blood flow are associated
    with arousal.
    The test is controversial and has been criticized for a lack of standardization and
    for being subject to manipulation. See United States v. Rhodes, 
    552 F.3d 624
    ,
    626–27 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Weber, 
    451 F.3d 552
    , 565 (9th Cir. 2006).
    It has also been criticized as Orwellian when, as here, the State compels the subject
    to arouse himself sexually and then forces him to view deviant stimulants so the
    State can get a sense of the person's pre-dispositions and, potentially, use those pre-
    dispositions against him. 
    Weber, 451 F.3d at 571
    –72 (Noonan, J., concurring).
    Courts have noted that PPGs are routinely used as a tool in treatment programs.
    
    Weber, 451 F.3d at 562
    –63 (citing Berthiaume v. Caron, 
    142 F.3d 12
    , 16 (1st Cir.
    1998)). Even so, with limited exceptions we will discuss later, courts have
    "uniformly" declared that PPG test results are "inadmissible as evidence because
    there are no accepted standards for this test in the scientific community." Doe ex
    rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 
    232 F.3d 1258
    , 1266 (9th Cir. 2000).
    Bilton frames his challenge as based on due process. He relies chiefly on the fact
    that Dr. Swan testified regarding the PPG results even though she did not
    administer the PPG, observe the test's administration, or review the raw data the
    test generated. Bilton also relies on Dr. Swan's testimony that she did not know
    whether the set of stimulants Dr. Burke used in Bilton's PPG had been
    peer-reviewed. Bilton correctly notes that our decision in State v. McCray
    prohibits one expert from serving as a "conduit" for a non-testifying expert's
    testimony. 
    413 S.C. 76
    , 
    773 S.E.2d 914
    (Ct. App. 2015). He says that is what Dr.
    Swan did here.
    The State contends it was appropriate for Dr. Swan to rely on Dr. Burke's work
    because, as an expert, Dr. Swan is permitted to rely on facts or data that are not
    themselves admissible in evidence as long as the facts or data are of the type
    reasonably relied on by experts in the field. See Rule 703, SCRE. The State relies
    chiefly on the fact that the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
    (DSM-V)—a publication recognized as authoritative—mentions the PPG as the
    most thoroughly researched method for providing a physiological indication of
    someone's sexual attractions and as the method that has been most extensively used
    to do so. The State also notes Dr. Swan's testimony that she was familiar with Dr.
    Burke's work, that Dr. Burke uses the same stimulus sets in every PPG test, and
    that Dr. Burke did not include any notations regarding quality control problems in
    the report from Bilton's test.
    If this was a criminal case, the error would not be debatable. Our decision in
    McCray would be directly on point, as would the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions
    in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts1 and Bullcoming v. New Mexico.2 These cases
    prohibit a testifying expert from acting as a "conduit" or "surrogate" for someone
    else's scientific analysis. Yet, those cases turned on the Sixth Amendment and its
    Confrontation Clause. We did not find any authority applying the Confrontation
    Clause to civil commitment proceedings. Indeed, we found cases holding the Sixth
    Amendment does not apply to these proceedings. See State v. Floyd Y., 
    2 N.E.3d 204
    , 209 (N.Y. 2013); In re MH-2008-000867, 
    236 P.3d 405
    , 407 (Ariz. 2010).
    Authorities recognize, however, that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
    Amendment applies. See Allen v. Illinois, 
    478 U.S. 364
    , 374 (1986). Indeed, our
    1
    
    557 U.S. 305
    (2009).
    2
    
    564 U.S. 647
    (2011).
    supreme court has noted civil commitment "constitutes a significant deprivation of
    liberty that requires due process protection." Matter of Chapman, 
    419 S.C. 172
    ,
    179, 
    796 S.E.2d 843
    , 846 (2017) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 
    441 U.S. 418
    , 425
    (1979)). The question here is whether due process dictates a different outcome in
    this civil case because it is civil rather than criminal.
    New York's highest court discussed due process in the context of civil commitment
    proceedings at length and observed that, although experts may rely on hearsay in
    forming opinions, allowing an expert to disclose hearsay to the jury has the
    potential to make that expert a "conduit for hearsay." Floyd 
    Y., 2 N.E.3d at 212
    (quoting People v. Goldstein, 
    843 N.E.2d 727
    , 731 (N.Y. 2005)). The court
    ultimately held due process "requires any hearsay basis evidence to meet minimum
    requirements of reliability and relevance" before the evidence can be admitted in a
    civil commitment proceeding.
    Id. at 213.
    We agree.
    We deal here with a narrow question. As we mentioned earlier, some authorities
    take the position that the PPG has value in treating sex offenders but that concerns
    about reliability and a lack of uniform standards preclude its admission as evidence
    at trial. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 
    100 N.E.3d 790
    , 796–97 (Mass. App.
    Ct. 2018) (collecting cases). Some jurisdictions have held that an expert may rely
    on a PPG as a basis for the expert's opinion but have expressly declined to consider
    whether the test results should be disclosed to the jury given the special weight the
    jury is likely to afford things that have the appearance of scientific evidence. E.g.,
    In re Commitment of Sandry, 
    857 N.E.2d 295
    , 317 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). Those
    questions are not before us, and we expressly note that we do not consider them
    here.
    This case presents the question of whether the circuit court erred in allowing the
    State to introduce Bilton's PPG test results through Dr. Swan when the test was not
    performed by Dr. Swan and when there was no demonstration that Bilton's test was
    reliable beyond Dr. Swan's statements that she was familiar with Dr. Burke's work
    and that nothing in Bilton's test results indicated there were problems with his test.
    We agree with Bilton that the circuit court did indeed err.
    Although Dr. Swan demonstrated basic familiarity with what a PPG is and how the
    test is performed, she had never seen one, nor had she seen Dr. Burke perform one.
    Dr. Swan was not familiar with Dr. Burke's stimulus sets or the machine Dr. Burke
    used. She also did not know whether Dr. Burke was actually present when the test
    was conducted.
    Neither Dr. Swan nor Bilton had access to the raw data from Bilton's PPG. Bilton
    specifically mentioned this in the course of his objection below. Dr. Swan also did
    not perform her own scientific review of the test results. She accepted the test
    results at face value and disclosed the test results to the jury.
    Dr. Swan even vouched for Dr. Burke's work, explaining that Dr. Burke's
    evaluation tools were "nationally recognized" and that it was important to use
    someone like Dr. Burke to perform the test because it was important to have a PPG
    test performed by someone who "does it like every single day."
    We are not aware of any authority that would bless this evidence's admission. The
    State points us to cases in two jurisdictions—Illinois and Washington—but those
    cases are readily distinguishable. These cases appear to be the main exceptions to
    the nearly uniform approach of excluding PPG test results from evidence. See
    
    Ortiz, 100 N.E.3d at 796
    –97 (collecting cases).
    We cited the case from Illinois earlier. Critically, Illinois courts do not examine
    reliability before "scientific" evidence is admitted. Commitment of 
    Sandry, 857 N.E.2d at 312
    ("Unlike these courts, our inquiry does not include reliability").
    Reliability is one of the three things a South Carolina court must assess before an
    expert's testimony is admitted. See State v. Council, 
    335 S.C. 1
    , 20, 
    515 S.E.2d 508
    , 518 (1999). That same Illinois case also said—explicitly—that it was not
    holding PPG test results could properly be disclosed to the fact finder.
    Commitment of 
    Sandry, 857 N.E.2d at 317
    ("We are expressly not presented with,
    and do not consider, any other questions, such as whether presenting the results of
    a PPG test directly to the trier of fact would be properly excluded because the
    prejudicial effect of such evidence would substantially exceed its probative
    value."). Disclosing the test results to the fact finder is, of course, precisely what
    happened here.
    As for Washington, the State directs us to a case holding that PPG evidence was
    not novel and not subject to the test for scientific evidence. See In re Det. of
    Halgren, 
    132 P.3d 714
    , 719 (Wash. 2006). Also, the expert in that case did not
    state that the PPG test results were directly related to a sex offender's risk of
    recidivism.
    Id. Thus, that case
    has the same distinctions that thwarted the Illinois
    case's usefulness here.
    The State claims this situation is no different from In re Manigo, another civil
    commitment case in which the testifying expert told the jury about that expert's
    out-of-court conversation with the defendant's counselor. 
    389 S.C. 96
    , 105–06,
    
    697 S.E.2d 629
    , 633–34 (Ct. App. 2010). The defendant had not been honest
    about his prior offenses with his counselor.
    Id. The counselor apparently
    shared
    this with the court-appointed evaluator.
    Id. There, as here,
    the evaluator appeared
    as the State's expert witness at trial.
    Id. This court rejected
    the defendant's argument that the circuit court erred in allowing
    the hearsay, noting that an expert may state an opinion based on facts not within
    his firsthand knowledge and that the expert may testify to hearsay for the purpose
    of showing what information the expert used to give an opinion. Id. at 
    106, 697 S.E.2d at 634
    . The present case poses the different question of whether due
    process constrains the extent to which an expert may offer hearsay for the purpose
    of explaining the expert's opinion. As we have explained, due process does not
    allow an expert to serve as a "conduit" for hearsay without some baseline showing
    that the hearsay is reliable.
    We do not hold that a baseline demonstration of reliability required affording
    Bilton the right to a face-to-face confrontation of the person who administered his
    PPG. That would render due process indistinguishable from the right to
    confrontation, and as we noted above, we did not find any authority applying the
    confrontation clause to these proceedings. Bilton objected that he had not been
    provided with the raw data generated by the test. Providing that data may have
    been sufficient, but we do not hold it would have been sufficient. We wish to
    emphasize that we are not called on to review whether some hypothetical
    procedure would qualify as a baseline demonstration that Bilton's PPG test results
    were reliable. We simply hold, as noted above, that due process does not allow a
    testifying expert to be a pipeline for someone else's scientific work to be admitted
    into evidence without a baseline demonstration of reliability. We also note that
    nothing requires the State to seek the admission of PPG test results as evidence in
    these cases.
    Harmless Error
    As with any improper evidence, the next step is to determine whether the
    erroneous admission qualifies as a harmless error. See In re Gonzalez, 
    409 S.C. 621
    , 636, 
    763 S.E.2d 210
    , 217 (2014) ("No definite rule of law governs this
    finding [of harmless error]; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the
    error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case." (quoting Judy v.
    Judy, 
    384 S.C. 634
    , 646, 
    682 S.E.2d 836
    , 842 (Ct. App. 2009))). We do not weigh
    the evidence when determining this. Instead, we ask "whether beyond a reasonable
    doubt the trial error did not contribute to the guilty verdict." State v. Tapp, 
    398 S.C. 376
    , 389–90, 
    728 S.E.2d 468
    , 475 (2012).
    As we noted at the beginning, the facts that led to Bilton's two sex offenses are
    deeply disturbing. To those facts, we add the notes that Dr. Swan explained she
    did not use the PPG as the sole basis of her opinion and that the PPG results—that
    Bilton had some level of deviant sexual attractions—were arguably cumulative
    given that nobody disputed Bilton's two previous sex offenses.
    Still, we cannot fairly say that beyond a reasonable doubt, the PPG test results did
    not contribute to the jury's verdict. The PPG test results were presented as
    empirical proof that the twenty-two-year-old Bilton had deviant sexual attractions
    and as a material factor for the jury to consider. Dr. Swan said PPG test results
    were "the one risk factor that carries the highest risk for committing another sexual
    crime." Many cases recount the special solicitude juries afford testimony that has
    the appearance of scientific evidence. We doubt the jury ignored the PPG test
    results in rendering its decision.
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the circuit court's judgment and remand for a
    new trial
    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
    LOCKEMY, C.J., and GEATHERS, J., concur.