State did not make a submissible case as to his being a SVP subject to commitment under the SVP Act in that there was no evidence from which the jury could find as required, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had serious difficulty in controlling his sexually violent behavior. As to that alleged error, the appellant requests that we reverse outright or, in the alternative, reverse and remand for a new trial. The State concedes that it did not prove that the appellant had serious difficulty in controlling his sexually violent behavior. However, it contends that the appellant is not entitled to an outright reversal as a result, in that, at the time of trial, the controlling law did not require it to prove that fact. See Shaffer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 689 S.W.2d 688, 687 (Mo.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). In that regard, the State contends that it
holding that trial counsel did not act unreasonably in failing to raise the issue of the defendants mental health at trial recognizing that even where a party has the burden of proof at trial that party need not produce proof supporting his claim in response to a motion for summary judgment unless the movant has first presented evidence that would negate an element of the nonmovants claim or indicates that the nonmovant will be unable to meet his burden at trial it is never enough simply to state that the nonmoving party cannot meet its burden at trial holding the standard of proof in summary judgment rulings is the same as it would be at trial holding that a plaintiff cannot be denied a new trial for failing to establish sufficient proof to meet a standard which at the time of trial did not exist holding verified motion for new trial did not require a hearing because it lacks sufficient detail to put the trial court on notice that reasonable grounds for relief exist