Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Care and Treatment of Quillen.

Court of Appeals of Kansas

October 18, 2019

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Richard A. Quillen.

         SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

         1.

         When analyzing jury instruction issues, an appellate court follows a three-step process. First, the court must determine whether it can or should review the issue, i.e., whether there is a lack of appellate jurisdiction or a failure to preserve the issue for appeal. Second, it must consider the merits of the claim to determine whether legal or factual errors occurred below. And third, if there is error, it must assess whether the error requires reversal, i.e., whether the error can be deemed harmless.

         2.

         The Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 59-29a01 et seq., authorizes the State to civilly commit sexually violent predators to the custody of the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services for treatment.

         3.

         To commit a person under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 59-29a02(a), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the person has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense, (2) the person suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder, (3) that mental abnormality or personality disorder makes the person likely to commit repeat acts of sexual violence, and (4) the person has serious difficulty controlling their dangerous behavior.

         4.

         When a person is civilly committed under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 59-29a08 entitles such person to an annual review to determine whether his or her mental abnormality or personality disorder has so changed as to render them safe to be at large. The committed person can also use the annual review process to seek transitional release out of the treatment program by filing a petition for transitional release.

         5.

         Upon filing a petition for transitional release, the committed person has the burden under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 59-29a08(d) to show probable cause to believe that the person's mental abnormality or personality disorder has significantly changed so that he or she is safe to be placed in transitional release.

         6.

         If the committed person establishes probable cause, the court must conduct a hearing on the petition for transitional release. Under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 59-29a08(g), the burden of proof at this hearing is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the committed person's mental abnormality or personality disorder remains such that the person is not safe to be placed in transitional release and if transitionally released is likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence.

         7.

         Due process requires annual review proceedings to utilize the same standard of proof as used in the original commitment proceedings. As such, to deny a committed person release, the State is also constitutionally required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person would have serious difficulty controlling his or her behavior if transitionally released.

          Appeal from Johnson District Court; Kevin P. Moriarty, judge.

          Before Green, P.J., Standridge, J., and McAnany, S.J.

          Michael J. Bartee, of Michael J. Bartee, P.A., of Olathe, for appellant.

          Dwight R. Carswell, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

          ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.