IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 13-0114

Filed March 12, 2014

IN RE THE DETENTION OF

ARTHUR JAMES TRIPLETT JR.

Applicant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Decatur County, Terry R. Rickers, 

Judge. 

Triplett appeals from judgment entry and order committing him to the 

custody of the Director of the Department of Human Services as a sexually 

violent predator. AFFIRMED.

Samuel P. Langholz, State Public Defender, and Thomas J. Gauland and 

Jason Alan Dunn, Assistant Public Defenders, Special Defense Unit, Des 

Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and John McCormally, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ.
2

MCDONALD, J.

Arthur James Triplett, Jr., appeals from a judgment and order issued 

pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 229A committing him to the custody of the 

Director of Department of Human Services for ongoing therapy and treatment as 

a sexually violent predator. On appeal, Triplett contends that the jury’s verdict 

and subsequent judgment is not supported by sufficient evidence. 

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for the correction 

of errors at law. See In re Det. of Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 286 (Iowa 2006). 

“If there is substantial evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could find the 

respondent to be a sexually violent predator beyond a reasonable doubt, we are 

bound by the jury’s finding.” Id. To determine whether there is substantial 

evidence, “we consider the entirety of the evidence presented in a light most 

favorable to the State, including all legitimate inferences and presumptions which 

may be fairly and reasonably deduced from the record.” Id. (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Triplett was committed as a sexually violent predator pursuant to chapter 

229A on September 25, 2005. The code defines a “sexually violent predator” as 

“a person who has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense 

and who suffers from a mental abnormality which makes the person likely to 

engage in predatory acts constituting sexually violent offenses, if not confined in 

a secure facility.” Iowa Code § 229A.2(11) (2011). A person committed under 

chapter 229A has the right to an annual review and, if warranted, a hearing on 

the status of the commitment. See id. § 229A.8(1)-(3). At any final hearing on 
3

the question of continued commitment, the committed person “is entitled to the 

benefit of all constitutional protections that were afforded the person at the 

original commitment proceeding.” Id. § 229A.8(6)(a). In addition, the committed 

person shall be entitled to a jury trial. See id. Although the commitment 

proceeding is a civil proceeding governed by the rules of civil procedure, to 

continue the commitment, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

either: (1) “The committed person’s mental abnormality remains such that the 

person is likely to engage in predatory acts that constitute sexually violent 

offenses if discharged;” or (2) “The committed person is not suitable for 

placement in a transitional release program . . . .” Id. § 229A.8(6)(d)(1) and (2).

On December 12, 2012, the district court convened a jury for the final 

hearing regarding Triplett’s commitment. At trial, the State called Dr. Tracy 

Thomas, a psychologist at the Civil Commitment Unit for Sex Offenders

(hereinafter “CCUSO”) in Cherokee, Iowa, to testify regarding the State’s 

evaluation of Triplett. She opined to a reasonable degree of professional 

certainty that Triplett continues to have a mental abnormality that makes him 

likely to engage in acts that constitute sexually violent offenses. She based her 

opinion on the following: prior and current diagnoses that Triplett is a pedophile; 

prior and current diagnoses that Triplett suffers from a constellation of other 

personality disorders, including antisocial personality disorder; a report prepared 

by her predecessor at CCUSO; Triplett’s denial of his mental abnormalities and 

failure to meaningfully treat for the same; and other actuarial risk factors. Triplett 

testified on his own behalf and denied that he ever sexually abused anyone. 
4

Triplett also called as witnesses Drs. Craig Rypma and Luis Rosell, who opined 

that Triplett did not suffer from a mental abnormality and was not likely to 

reoffend. The jury returned its verdict on December 14, finding that Triplett 

remained a sexually violent predator. The district court entered judgment 

accordingly.

Triplett’s primary contention on appeal is that Dr. Thomas’s opinion should 

not have been credited over his experts’ opinions. He contends that Dr. Thomas 

does not have significant experience. He also contends Dr. Thomas did not 

conduct a meaningful independent examination of Triplett but instead relied on 

her predecessor’s report. In contrast, he contends his experts had greater 

experience and their opinions were better supported by the facts. The weight to 

be given to the evidence was for the fact finder to determine. See In re Det. of

Pierce, 748 N.W.2d 509, 514 (Iowa 2008). “It is not the court’s function here to 

determine the correctness of either the theory or testimony between experts.” In 

re Det. of Sanders, No. 11-0202, 2012 WL 836827, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 14, 

2012) (citing Martin v. Bankers’ Life Co., 250 N.W. 220, 223 (Iowa 1933)). 

Although Triplett’s experts testified contrary to the State’s expert, “[i]t was for the 

jury to decide which of the experts was more credible . . . and whose opinion . . . 

the jury would accept.” In re Det. of Altman, 723 N.W.2d 181, 185 (Iowa 2006) 

(alteration in original) (citation omitted). 

After reviewing the record, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the jury’s verdict, we conclude substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict. 

See Altman, 723 N.W.2d at 186 (“We think [the State’s expert’s] opinion that 
5

[defendant] would likely reoffend sexually in the future was sufficient . . . .

Consequently, there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that 

the [defendant] was a sexually violent predator.”); see, e.g., In re Det. of Elliot, 

No. 12-0557, 2013 WL 979096, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2013) (finding 

State’s expert’s testimony provided sufficient evidence that defendant was a 

sexually violent predator despite contrary expert opinion); In re Det. of Anderson, 

No. 11-1172, 2012 WL 6193960, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2012) (same); In 

re Det. of Stevenson, No. 11-1299, 2012 WL 3196122, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 

8, 2012) (same); Sanders, 2012 WL 836827, at *3 (finding State’s expert’s 

testimony provided substantial evidence that defendant was a sexually violent 

predator so as to defeat defendant’s motion for directed verdict); In re Det. of 

Curtiss, No. 08-1299, 2009 WL 2514074, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2009) 

(finding State’s expert’s testimony that defendant suffered from pedophilia and 

antisocial personality disorder provided “substantial evidence” to show that 

defendant was a sexually violent predator).

Accordingly, pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(b), the judgment of the 

district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.