In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: David Josef Lovejoy.
A16-1442
| Minn. Ct. App. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- David Lovejoy (born 1966) has multiple sexual-offense convictions: attempted sexual abuse of a 16-year-old (Arizona), possession of child pornography (Minnesota), and second-degree criminal sexual conduct against a 4-year-old (Minnesota). He admitted to many of these acts or entered Alford pleas.
- Police found child pornography on Lovejoy’s laptop in 2011; images depicted sexual contact/penetration of children. He pled to possession counts and served prison time; later pled to criminal sexual conduct against J.M.R.G.
- Polk County petitioned in 2015 to civilly commit Lovejoy as a sexually dangerous person (SDP). Two court-appointed examiners (Drs. Marshall and Austin) opined he met SDP criteria.
- A multi-day civil-commitment hearing (Feb 2016) produced extensive exhibits and testimony; the district court committed Lovejoy as an SDP in July 2016.
- On appeal Lovejoy challenged the district court’s findings on (1) whether he engaged in a “course of harmful sexual conduct” and (2) whether he is likely (highly likely) to reoffend; he did not challenge the finding that he manifests a sexual/personality disorder or that less-restrictive alternatives were unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Lovejoy’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lovejoy engaged in a “course of harmful sexual conduct” | Court erred: one groping was mischaracterized and harm presumption misapplied; evidence insufficient | Multiple offenses (J.M.R.G. repeatedly, K.M.L., and child pornography) suffice to establish a course of harmful sexual conduct | Affirmed: sufficient evidence (esp. repeated offenses against J.M.R.G. and porn possession) |
| Whether harm presumption applied to K.M.L. incident | Presumption improperly applied because K.M.L. was 16 (offense was fifth-degree) | District court applied presumption but other findings independently establish harm | Court erred in applying presumption to K.M.L., but error harmless because other findings support course of conduct |
| Whether Lovejoy is highly likely to reoffend (third criterion) | Lack of a proven course of conduct and alleged examiner errors undermine future-risk finding | District court applied Linehan factors and examiners’ opinions; found high likelihood to reoffend | Affirmed: district court’s independent application of Linehan factors and expert opinions supported a finding of high likelihood |
| Whether district court erred in crediting experts and weighing evidence | Experts relied on disputed facts and court improperly relied on presumption | Court is best positioned to assess credibility and may weigh voluminous record; presumption and expert opinions are admissible | Affirmed: appellate court defers to district court credibility assessments and does not reweigh evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Civil Commitment of Ince, 847 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 2014) (standard and burden for SDP commitment; appellate review deference)
- Linehan v. Minnesota, 518 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1994) (Linehan I) (factors for evaluating future dangerousness in civil commitment)
- In re Civil Commitment of Stone, 711 N.W.2d 831 (Minn. App. 2006) (definition of a "course of harmful sexual conduct" and application guidance)
- In re Civil Commitment of Spicer, 853 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. App. 2014) (standard of review for district court findings in commitment cases)
- In re Civil Commitment of Crosby, 824 N.W.2d 351 (Minn. App. 2013) (deference to district court credibility determinations)
- Linehan v. Minnesota, 557 N.W.2d 171 (Minn. 1996) (Linehan III) (discussion of appellate review limitations in commitment context)