In Re Civil Commitment of Williams
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ROSS, Judge.
Richard Williams appeals from an order for indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person and sexual psychopathic personality. Williams argues that the district court erred by admitting evidence based on rule 15 of the Commitment and Treatment Act Rules rather than applying the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, that application of rule 15 violated his due process rights, that clear and convincing evidence does not support one of the district court’s factual findings, and that the court erred by appointing a third examiner. The district court correctly relied on…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Marriage of Rubey v. VannettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- State v. SchabertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- In Re IrwinCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- In Re the Civil Commitment of RameyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. Floyd Y.New York Court of Appeals · 2013
- In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Ingram OyugiCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024