Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re the Detention of Ronald Tripp

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided April 13, 2018No. 16-2141Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

MANSFIELD, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. The majority correctly determines that Ronald Tripp was not "presently confined" for a sexually violent offense at the time the State filed its sexually violent predator (SVP) petition. However, there is substantial evidence that Tripp committed a "recent overt act" - namely, the attempted sexual abuse of a woman in 2013. This was the State's alternative ground for SVP

*420commitment of Tripp. The district court failed to make a finding here only because it didn't think it had to.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. DullardSupreme Court of Iowa · 2003
  2. In Re the Detention of GarrenSupreme Court of Iowa · 2000
  3. In RE the Detention of Jonathan Edwin Stenzel Jonathan Edwin StenzelSupreme Court of Iowa · 2013
  4. State of Iowa v. Brock McRey BurgdorfCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 2014
  5. In Re Detention of BradfordSupreme Court of Iowa · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API