Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealburden of proof
appealhearingtestimonyappellant

Related Cases

Bilzerian v. U.S., 537 U.S. 1060, 123 S.Ct. 640 (Mem), 154 L.Ed.2d 543, 71 USLW 3388
View Case »
Christeson v. Roper, 574 U.S. 373, 135 S.Ct. 891, 190 L.Ed.2d 763, 83 USLW 4071, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 582, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 753, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 56
View Case »
Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 L.Ed.2d 532
View Case »
McDonald v. Emory Healthcare Eye Center, 391 Fed.Appx. 851
View Case »
In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505, 59 USLW 2242, 17 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1215
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Matter of Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214

Facts

Mitchell Kenney was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person in 2010 after being adjudicated delinquent of multiple sexual offenses against minors. In 2018, he petitioned for a reduction in custody, which the Commitment Appeal Panel (CAP) granted for provisional discharge after a de novo review of the Special Review Board's (SRB) recommendation. The Commissioner of the Department of Human Services opposed the petition, leading to an appeal that reversed the CAP's decision.

Appellant Mitchell Kenney was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person in 2010. In 2018, he petitioned for a reduction in custody. After conducting a de novo review of the recommendation by the Special Review Board (SRB), the Commitment Appeal Panel (CAP) granted his petition for provisional discharge.

Issue

Did the court of appeals err in its application of the clear-error standard of review by engaging in inherent reweighing of the evidence?

Did the court of appeals err in its application of the clear-error standard of review by engaging in inherent reweighing of the evidence?

Rule

The clear-error standard of review does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence; it requires the court to determine whether the evidence reasonably supports the findings of the factfinder.

The clear-error standard of review does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the court of appeals' reasoning and concluded that it incorrectly suggested that the clear-error standard allowed for some inherent reweighing of the evidence. The CAP's decision to grant provisional discharge was supported by substantial evidence, including Kenney's treatment progress and the conditions of his provisional discharge plan, which would provide reasonable public safety.

The clear-error standard does not contemplate a reweighing of the evidence, inherent or otherwise; it is a review of the record to confirm that evidence exists to support the decision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision and remanded the case, affirming the CAP's finding that Kenney's provisional discharge was appropriate.

Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to that court to address the remaining issue in this appeal.

Who won?

Mitchell Kenney prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the evidence supported the CAP's decision to grant his provisional discharge, and the Commissioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to deny it.

The CAP held a 2-day hearing at which it received exhibits and heard testimony from Scott Halvorson, Kelly Meyer, Michelle Ensz, Christopher Schiffer, Jessica Scharf, Andrea Lovett, and Kenney.

You must be