{"id":2688,"date":"2021-11-03T08:28:41","date_gmt":"2021-11-03T13:28:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2688"},"modified":"2021-11-03T08:28:41","modified_gmt":"2021-11-03T13:28:41","slug":"in-the-matter-of-the-civil-commitment-of-kenney-minn-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2021\/11\/03\/in-the-matter-of-the-civil-commitment-of-kenney-minn-2021\/","title":{"rendered":"In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of Kenney (Minn. 2021)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of Kenney, No. A20-1007 (Minn. 2021)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong>Appellant was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person in 2010.\u00a0 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 Appellant’s petition for provisional discharge.\u00a0 The court of appeals reversed stating that CAP “substituted its judgment for that of the experts who testified.”\u00a0 Appellant filed a petition for review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case, concluding that clear-error review does not permit an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and that the evidence in the record reasonably supports CAP’s decision to grant provisional discharge.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n