State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545

564 S.E.2d 87 (2002) · Supreme Court of South Carolina · May 20, 2002 · No. No. 25469

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Frank M. Gaster’s commitment under the South Carolina Sexually Violent Predator Act. The court held that the Act did not violate ex post facto or double jeopardy protections, declined to reach an unpreserved due process claim, and found sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s sexually violent predator determination. The court also upheld admission of Gaster’s motion concerning the legal age of sexual consent as relevant evidence regarding his need for treatment.

Holdings

  1. The Act does not violate the federal or South Carolina Ex Post Facto Clauses because it establishes a civil, nonpunitive commitment scheme rather than criminal punishment, and its application does not retroactively alter the definition or punishment of a crime.
  2. The Act does not violate the federal or South Carolina Double Jeopardy Clauses.
  3. The court declined to review Gaster's due process challenge because it was not raised to or ruled upon by the trial court.
  4. The evidence supported the jury's finding that Gaster was a sexually violent predator and supported denial of his directed-verdict and JNOV motions.
  5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the motion because it was relevant to Gaster's need for and probability of success in treatment, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the South Carolina Sexually Violent Predator Act violates the federal or South Carolina constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws or double jeopardy.
  2. Whether Gaster's due process challenge to the Act was preserved for appellate review.
  3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Gaster was a sexually violent predator and to support denial of his directed-verdict and JNOV motions.
  4. Whether the trial court violated due process by admitting Gaster's motion challenging the legal age of sexual consent as evidence relevant to his need for treatment.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (11)

  • State v. Jones, 344 S.C. 48, 543 S.E.2d 541 (2001)(followed)
  • Jernigan v. State, 340 S.C. 256, 531 S.E.2d 507 (2000)(followed)
  • State v. Huiett, 302 S.C. 169, 394 S.E.2d 486 (1990)(followed)
  • Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 80 S. Ct. 1367, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1435 (1960)(followed)
  • In re Matthews, 345 S.C. 638, 550 S.E.2d 311 (2001)(followed)
  • Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 121 S. Ct. 727, 148 L. Ed. 2d 734 (2001)(followed)
  • Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S. Ct. 2072, 138 L. Ed. 2d 501 (1997)(followed)
  • In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 551 S.E.2d 235 (2001)(followed)
  • Gastineau v. Murphy, 331 S.C. 565, 503 S.E.2d 712 (1998)(followed)
  • State v. McDonald, 343 S.C. 319, 540 S.E.2d 464 (2000)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from South Carolina Supreme Court