In the Matter of the CIVIL COMMITMENT OF Gary George SPICER
853 N.W.2d 803
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Gary Spicer, age 50, convicted of multiple sexual offenses against step-daughters (2005 and 2012 convictions) and admitted additional unprosecuted sexual abuse of minors; county petitioned to civilly commit him as a Sexually Dangerous Person (SDP) and a Sexual Psychopathic Personality (SPP).
- Three forensic psychologists evaluated Spicer: Drs. Alberg and Marston concluded commitment appropriate (both SDP and SPP); Dr. Kenning concluded Spicer was not highly likely to reoffend and did not satisfy SDP criteria (no opinion on SPP).
- Experts used Static-99R and SRA-FV actuarial tools and structured clinical assessments; all three reported a 24% lifetime recidivism probability but disagreed on weight of dynamic factors and ultimate risk.
- District court issued a lengthy 79-page order finding Spicer both an SDP and an SPP and ordering indefinite commitment; Spicer moved for more particular findings and appealed.
- Court of Appeals held the bench appearance of a victim (E.R.) was permissible but reversed and remanded both SDP and SPP determinations because the district court’s findings lacked required particularity and failed to meaningfully apply the Linehan multi-factor analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Spicer) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Spicer is an SDP ("highly likely" to reoffend) | District court failed to make particular findings showing multi-factor Linehan analysis supports a "highly likely" conclusion | District court applied experts’ opinions and actuarials to find high likelihood of reoffense | Reversed and remanded: findings insufficiently particular; multi-factor analysis not meaningfully explained |
| Whether Spicer is an SPP (utter lack of control) | District court did not make particular findings linking evidence to the heightened SPP standard | District court relied on similar factual and expert findings used for SDP determination | Reversed and remanded for more particular findings and analysis |
| Admissibility of bringing victim into courtroom for observation | Presence was prejudicial and should have been excluded under Rule 403 | Victim’s brief appearance was probative of capacity to consent; bench trial reduces unfair prejudice risk | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in allowing brief courtroom observation |
| Use of actuarial vs. clinical evidence in Linehan analysis | Court overrelied on experts’ actuarials without stating which dynamic factors it credited | Court permissibly considered actuarial and clinical evidence but must explain weight and avoid duplicative factor-counting | Remand required to tie factual findings to legal standard and identify which evidence was most persuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Linehan v. Comm’r of Pub. Welfare, 518 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1994) (established multi-factor SPP/Linehan analysis requirement and need for particularized findings)
- In re Civil Commitment of Ince, 847 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 2014) (SDP standard: "highly likely" to reoffend; requires comprehensive multi-factor analysis and explanation of factor significance)
- Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 249 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 1976) (district courts must make written findings that reflect consideration of statutory factors; particularity required for meaningful appellate review)
- In re Welfare of M.M., 452 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. 1990) (findings must indicate which facts or opinions were most persuasive for ultimate decision)
- State v. Burrell, 772 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. 2009) (bench-trial context reduces concern about unfair prejudice under evidentiary Rule 403)