Civil Commitment upheld for Austin sex offender

10-31-16 Minnesota:

ST. PAUL, Minn. – A Mower County man has lost an appeal of his civil commitment as a sex offender.

Aaron Michael Hayes of Austin, who is now 35-year-old, was sentenced to 144 months in prison for the sexual assault of an 81-year-old woman in 2002. That followed Hayes not being prosecuted after he allegedly sexually assaulting a six-year-old girl in 1990 when Hayes was nine-years-old.

Court records say that while in prison, Hayes assaulted correctional officers and other inmates. He also entered the Minnesota sex-offender program twice and was rejected from the program twice, once for threatening the prison psychiatrist and a second time for threatening another offender and his lack of progress in the program.

Minnesota Supreme Court takes unusual step of reversing sex offender's commitment

4-23-2014 Minnesota:

The Minnesota Supreme Court has taken the unusual step of reversing the commitment of a man to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and sent the case back to a lower court for further proceedings.

The high court reaffirmed Wednesday that courts must find sex offenders "highly likely" to reoffend before civilly committing them to the secure treatment program, which is the subject of a constitutional challenge in federal court and debate at the Legislature. But the justices said judges need to make formal findings of fact on whether less restrictive treatment programs are available.

So the justices sent the case of Cedrick Scott Ince (INTS) back to Sibley County District Court for clarification. His lawyers say they'll argue he should be freed on intensive supervised release pending a final ruling. ..Source.. by STEVE KARNOWSKI

---

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Cedrick Scott Ince.
Court of Appeals.
1. The term “likely,” as used in the determination of whether a person is “likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct” under Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18c(a) (2012), does not indicate a defined numeric level of certainty or require that the fact-finder be substantially certain that the person will engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct. We continue to adhere to our previous construction of this provision, which requires evidence that the person is “highly likely” to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct. In re Linehan (Linehan III), 557 N.W.2d 171, 180 (Minn. 1996), vacated sub nom. Linehan v. Minnesota, 522 U.S. 1011 (1997).

2. The determination of whether an individual is highly likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct should be based on the multi-factor analysis for dangerousness prediction adopted in In re Linehan (Linehan I), 518 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1994), and all other evidence, including actuarial data, that the district court finds relevant and reliable. The relative weight provided to each Linehan factor and other evidence should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the district court.

3. Findings of fact that support the district court’s conclusions on the availability of a less restrictive treatment program must be sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

4. Because of the unusual nature of the facts and circumstances presented, a remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of this opinion is required to reevaluate whether appellant is highly likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct and whether a less restrictive alternative for treatment is available.

---

Judge denies sex offender’s appeal challenging his commitment

---

9-22-15 Minnesota:

A man convicted of multiple instances of sexual assault went to the appeals court, challenging a court ruling that he should be kept in the beleaguered Minnesota Sex Offender Program. But the judge disagreed.

In a 14-page opinion posted Monday, the judge denied Brian Lee Wilbur’s arguments that the court made an error when deciding he should be committed to the sex offender program.

Wilbur had challenged his commitment, arguing two things: One, that he doesn’t meet the criteria to be committed as a “sexually dangerous person” – and two, that he could take part in a less-restrictive treatment option.

His criminal history, which is noted in the opinion: He’d pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting the 15-year-old sister of his then-wife in 1987, was found guilty of sexually assaulting a 5-year-old girl who lived in his apartment complex in 1988, and nine years later was sentenced to 25 years in prison for sexually assaulting a 25-year-old woman while she was in her bedroom. There’s also a window-peeping case from 1992.

In 2014, with his sentence nearing its end, two medical examiners concluded Wilbur fit the definition of a sexually dangerous person, and he was committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program.

That ruling prompted Wilbur’s appeal, and arguments that the court erred.

The judge, however, said the district court did not make an error in either instance – that there’s enough evidence Wilbur should be classified as a sexually dangerous person who is likely to re-offend, and that there isn’t another less-restrictive treatment option.

Wilbur has appealed at least three other times, with a judge never writing in his favor.

Criticism of the Sex Offender Program

Minnesota’s sex offender treatment program was ruled unconstitutional earlier this year, the result of a lawsuit brought against the state by confined offenders – all of whom have completed their prison sentence.

They argued the program locks people up indefinitely with little-to-no chance at getting out. In fact, only three have been provisionally released in the 20 years it has been running. None have been fully released.

As of July 1, the Department of Human Services said there were 720 offenders in the program.

As a result, last month the ruling judge ordered the state to make reforms – or he could intervene. Officials had until Monday, Sept. 21 to file proposed fixes. MinnPost reported another hearing was scheduled for late September. ..Source.. by Shaymus McLaughlin

---