In re Care and Treatment of Barnett, 123103

Valdie T. Barnett has a long history of juvenile and adult convictions for violent and sexual offenses; convictions from 2004 led to consecutive prison terms.
Prior commitment proceedings resulted in reversal and remand for procedural defects; the State later refiled and obtained a new forensic evaluation.
For the 2019 trial the State's expert (Dr. Flesher) and prior evaluator (Dr. Kohrs) diagnosed antisocial personality disorder and testified Barnett posed a high risk of sexual recidivism; Barnett’s expert (Dr. Nystrom) disagreed.
Barnett had a 17-month release before re-commitment during which he lived with his mother, avoided high-risk situations, and was often chaperoned; he did not engage in sex-offender treatment.
The trial court found Barnett met the statutory criteria for commitment as a sexually violent predator, focusing on his diagnosis, criminal history, lack of sustained treatment/insight, and plans to live alone.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Burden shifting: Did trial court shift burden to Barnett on element 4 (serious difficulty controlling behavior)?	Barnett: Court's comments implied he had to show control, effectively shifting burden from State.	State: Court merely noted absence of evidence undermining Barnett's claim and properly required State to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.	Court: No improper burden shift; trial court applied the State's beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden and merely discounted Barnett's 17‑month release because he lacked treatment/insight.
Sufficiency of evidence on element 4 (serious difficulty controlling dangerous behavior)	Barnett: Evidence of 17 months without reported reoffense undermines finding he has serious difficulty controlling behavior.	State: Expert diagnoses, criminal history, disciplinary incidents, lack of treatment while released, reliance on chaperones, and future living plans support dangerousness and lack of control.	Court: Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the State, evidence was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to show serious difficulty controlling dangerous behavior.

In re Care & Treatment of Williams, 292 Kan. 96, 253 P.3d 327 (Kansas Supreme Court) (sets statutory elements for sexually violent predator commitment)
In re Care & Treatment of Hay, 263 Kan. 822, 953 P.2d 666 (Kansas Supreme Court) (addresses burden of proof in commitment proceedings)
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. Supreme Court) (due process concerns in civil commitment; standard of proof principles)
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (U.S. Supreme Court) (civil commitment implicates liberty and due process)
State v. Colbert, 26 Kan. App. 2d 177, 987 P.2d 1110 (Kan. Ct. App.) (evidentiary presumptions can violate due process by relieving State of burden)
In re Care & Treatment of Cone, 309 Kan. 321, 435 P.3d 45 (Kansas Supreme Court) (appellate standard for reviewing sufficiency in commitment cases)
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. Supreme Court) (past violent behavior as predictive factor in commitment analysis)