The South Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled on the controversial use of penile plethysmography (PPG) tests in sexually violent predator (SVP) commitment cases. The decision, filed on May 13, 2026, affects individuals undergoing civil commitment evaluations under the state's SVP Act. The court found that PPG results, which measure sexual arousal, are generally inadmissible in court due to their lack of reliability and standardization.

This ruling comes from the case of Andy Eugene Hyman, who was evaluated for civil commitment after multiple sexual offense convictions. The court's decision highlights the ongoing debate over the scientific validity of PPG tests, which have been criticized for their controversial methodology and inconsistent results.

Background

Andy Hyman, the respondent in this case, has a history of sexual offenses. In 1997, he pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct with a minor and was sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act. After serving a short prison term, he completed several years of supervised release. In 2016, Hyman was again convicted of criminal sexual conduct, this time in the third degree, and sentenced to ten years in prison.

Before his release, the state initiated civil commitment proceedings under the SVP Act. The South Carolina Office of Mental Health (OMH) conducted a pre-commitment evaluation and concluded that Hyman did not qualify as a sexually violent predator. However, the state sought a second opinion from the Sexual Behavior Clinic and Lab at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), which found that Hyman did meet the criteria for SVP classification.

The Ruling

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision, which had reversed the trial court's ruling that allowed the PPG results to be admitted as evidence. The court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the PPG results, stating, "The PPG procedures employed here by MUSC highlight the glaring lack of standardization prevalent in both the protocols for the test and the analysis of the results—a problem that necessarily prevents any finding of reliability."

The court emphasized the significant controversies surrounding the PPG, noting that the scientific community remains divided on its reliability. The opinion pointed out that the lack of standardization in administering the test and interpreting the results undermines its use in high-stakes evaluations like those under the SVP Act. The ruling mandates a new commitment proceeding for Hyman, free from the PPG evidence.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future SVP commitment cases in South Carolina. It establishes a precedent that PPG results cannot be used as reliable evidence unless the underlying science is further developed and standardized. This decision may lead to a reevaluation of how sexual predators are assessed and treated in the state, potentially affecting many individuals facing similar evaluations.

The court's ruling also reflects broader concerns regarding the use of controversial psychological tests in legal proceedings. By affirming the court of appeals' decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court has aligned itself with the majority view that questions the validity of PPGs as diagnostic tools in legal contexts.

What's Next

Following this ruling, the case will be remanded for a new commitment proceeding without the PPG evidence. It remains unclear whether the state will seek further appeals or if there are related cases pending that could be affected by this decision. The ruling may prompt other jurisdictions to reconsider the use of similar testing methods in sexually violent predator evaluations.