were issues brought up on appeal i'm going to be discussing today the first issue is that the trial court feel to utilize the proper standard in determining that mr dodd here was a sexually violent person that person has a mental disorder and number three then that person is deemed dangerous because of the mental disorder that that person is substantially probable to engage in a future act of sexual violence substantially probable and the period i owned is the element i'm going to focus on for purposes of this argument it's offense with possible has been held to mean much more likely than not and the trial for in this manner failed to explicitly find that mr got here was substantially probable of committing a sex offense in the future in fact the trial court needed a written found except for the proper standard provided in the statute based on the fact that in closing arguments the state properly defined the statute however this this court actually recently provid that there was a mass just in case the supreme court case dealing with the sexually dangerous person act and that's a group court case the court ruled that there needed to be an explicit finding to why there are person is but however i believe it's important to make the clear meet that strict finally make him he's going to engage in future acts of sexual violence he cuz this statute put the standard in there to make it a strict stand again this brings me back to the strict standard that's put into this didn't you are requiring that there be a district finding it much more likely than not the problem with finding it based on a high risk is that high evaluations and testimony the second was that the trial counsel did not object to the foundation of the experts testimony and lastly was that the trial counsel failed to the by evidence at the disposition off reasonable probability that the outcome the trial would have been different i blew were able to show that here the state only provided expert witnesses to all of them in the trial the entirety of the state's case we lie on these two expert witnesses trial counsel did not cross examined these witnesses as to the in accurate information which is apparent on the face of the record  meet additional mistakes that's and now into the mistakes in the actual are all instruments but the credibility of the witnesses testif but they're still in the commitment receiving has to be a bonding that is substantially testified to respond will tell one person one thing and one thing the next and he said he's told various people that he does drink alcohol other people that he doesn't drink alcohol he told one of the state's evaluators that he had lived with a woman for so it should be assumed that the trial court was reclined proper standard this is a scene in which the state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt certain elements so that a person periods of that time as well understood at trial that the job trial court didn't make the explicit finding its course enough that that then some of the information was off because it was still close enough to that to go ahead and commit this individual to involuntary there's a reason why the statute has strict elements in place and there's reason why it's to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt the strictest standard we have and it's because it's extreme remedy that we're pursuing