IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-1282

Filed January 12, 2022

IN RE THE DETENTION OF 

ZACHARY WELSH,

ZACHARY WELSH,

Respondent-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Richard D. Stochl, 

Judge.

Zachary Welsh appeals his commitment as a sexually violent predator. 

AFFIRMED.

Matthew S. Sheeley, State Public Defender Adult Division, Des Moines, for 

appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Keisha F. Cretsinger, Assistant 

Attorney General, and Richard Bennett, Special Counsel, for appellee, State.

Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.
2

AHLERS, Judge.

At the district court, the State successfully petitioned to have Zachary Welsh

committed as a sexually violent predator. Welsh appeals. He contends the 

evidence is insufficient to support the commitment.

I. Statutory Background and Standards

Civil commitment of sexually violent predators is governed by Iowa Code 

chapter 229A (2020). That chapter plots separate courses of commitment 

depending on whether the person sought to be committed is “presently confined” 

for a sexually violent offense.1 The first course is followed when the person is 

“presently confined” for a sexually violent offense.2 The second course is followed

when the person is no longer confined but has committed a recent overt act under 

certain circumstances.3 In its petition, the State alleged Welsh is presently 

confined for a sexually violent offense, and Welsh does not challenge that claim. 

As there is no disagreement that Welsh is presently confined, Welsh is on the first 

course for commitment.

The purpose of the civil commitment proceeding is to determine if the 

person is a “sexually violent predator,” which is defined as “a person who has been 

convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense[4] and who suffers from a 

 

1

In re Det. of Wygle, 910 N.W.2d 599, 601 (Iowa 2018). 

2 Wygle, 910 N.W.2d at 601 (citing Iowa Code § 229A.4(1)). 

3 Wygle, 910 N.W.2d at 601 (citing Iowa Code § 229A.4(2)).

4 The statute lists various offenses that constitute sexually violent offenses. The 

offenses include “violation of any provision of chapter 709” and “[a]ny act which, 

either at the time of sentencing for the offense or subsequently during civil 

commitment proceedings pursuant to this chapter, has been determined beyond a 

reasonable doubt to have been sexually motivated.” Iowa Code 

§ 229A.2(12)(a), (g). “Sexually motivated” is defined to mean “that one of the 
3

mental abnormality[5] which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts[6]

constituting sexually violent offenses, if not confined in a secure facility.”7

As it pertains to this appeal, the parties generally agree that the State must 

prove two elements to commit a person under the first course of chapter 229A: 

(1) the person has a mental abnormality causing the person serious difficulty 

controlling the person’s behavior; and (2) the person is more likely than not to 

commit a sexually violent offense in the future, absent confinement.8 The State 

must prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.9 The district court found 

that the State met its burden and civilly committed Welsh. On appeal, Welsh’s only 

challenge is to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the State’s claim that he 

has serious difficulty controlling his behavior.

II. Standard of Review

We review claims of insufficient evidence for correction of errors at law.10 

We will uphold the court’s decision if there is substantial evidence “upon which a 

 

purposes for commission of a crime is the purpose of sexual gratification of the 

perpetrator of the crime.” Iowa Code § 229A.2(11).

5

“Mental abnormality” is defined as “a congenital or acquired condition affecting 

the emotional or volitional capacity of a person and predisposing that person to 

commit sexually violent offenses to a degree which would constitute a menace to 

the health and safety of others.” Iowa Code § 229A.2(6).

6 With respect to a person currently confined—like Welsh—“likely to engage in 

predatory acts of sexual violence” is defined to mean “that the person more likely 

than not will engage in acts of a sexually violent nature.” Iowa Code § 229A.2(5). 

“Predatory” is defined as “acts directed toward a person with whom a relationship 

has been established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimization.” Id.

§ 229A.2(7).

7

Iowa Code § 229A.2(13).

8 See Iowa Code § 229A.2(13) (defining sexually violent predator); In re Det. of 

Stenzel, 827 N.W.2d 690, 701 (Iowa 2013). 

9

Iowa Code § 229A.7(5); Stenzel, 827 N.W.2d at 701. 

10 In re Detention of Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 286 (Iowa 2006). 
4

rational trier of fact could find the respondent to be a sexually violent predator 

beyond a reasonable doubt.”11 On our review to determine if the evidence was 

substantial, “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.’ Evidence is not substantial 

if it raises only suspicion, speculation, or conjecture.”12

III. Analysis of the Sufficiency of the Evidence

The evidence here consists of a number of uncontested facts coupled with 

a battle of experts.

A. The Uncontested Facts

The uncontested facts include Welsh’s criminal behavior. Welsh began 

exposing himself to others when he was around ten years old. At age fifteen, he 

was adjudicated delinquent for assault with intent to commit sexual abuse of a 

thirteen-year-old boy. In 2002, when he was nineteen, he was convicted of 

indecent exposure and placed on the sex offender registry after exposing his penis 

to a female employee of a hair salon. Two to three years later, Welsh was 

convicted of harassment twice for making obscene phone calls to women. When 

he was twenty-three years old, Welsh was again convicted of indecent exposure, 

this time for exposing his penis and masturbating in a department store. Four 

years later, Welsh was convicted for violating sex offender registry requirements 

by being in a public library. One and one-half years later, when he was twenty-

 

11 Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d at 286. 

12 Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d at 287 (quoting In re Det. of Swanson, 668 N.W.2d 570, 

574 (Iowa 2003)).
5

eight, Welsh was convicted of harassment for making an obscene phone call to a 

library employee. In 2018, when he was thirty-four years old, Welsh was convicted 

of two counts of violating sex offender registry requirements after being caught 

loitering outside a dance studio and peering through the windows at the young 

dancers. He was in prison for these two registry charges when the State filed its 

petition for civil commitment.

In addition to his delinquency adjudication and criminal convictions, Welsh 

testified that he exposed himself to others somewhere between ten and twentyfive times without being caught. He also failed to complete sex offender treatment 

while placed at the State Training School for his delinquency adjudication. While 

in prison for his adult convictions, Welsh completed sex offender treatment, but he 

testified that he only completed the program by lying. He asserts his lie was

admitting there was a sexual reason why he was peering in the windows at the 

dance studio.

B. The Battle of the Experts

Both sides called expert witnesses. The State’s expert, a licensed 

psychologist, interviewed Welsh twice and reviewed over 1200 pages of records 

about Welsh. He testified that after his examination of Welsh, his opinion is that 

Welsh suffered from a predisposing mental disorder that makes him more likely 

than not to commit future acts of sexual violence. He diagnosed Welsh with “other 

specified disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorder—hypersexual type.” 

With this, he opined that Welsh has difficulty controlling his impulses and sexually 

acts out. The State’s expert also conducted and relied on several actuarial-based 
6

assessments.

13 Based on the information gathered and the assessments

conducted, the expert determined that Welsh is very likely to reoffend if he is 

released.

Welsh’s expert is a clinical and forensic psychologist. He also interviewed 

Welsh and reviewed records about Welsh. Armed with that information, he gave 

the opinion that Welsh does not suffer from a qualifying mental abnormality. He 

acknowledged Welsh has a number of mental disorders, but none that would 

cause him to commit sexually violent offenses. The conclusion that Welsh did not 

presently suffer from a qualifying mental abnormality was based, in part, on his 

belief that Welsh had not exposed himself in over thirteen years and had not made 

an obscene phone call in approximately eight years.

C. The District Court’s Decision

After hearing the testimony from Welsh and the two experts, the district 

court found that the State met its burden to prove that Welsh was a sexually violent 

predator. In reaching this conclusion, the district court stated that it found the 

State’s expert more convincing than Welsh’s.

The unchallenged facts show that Welsh has an extensive and primarily 

sexual criminal history. That history shows Welsh’s failure to control his sexual 

impulses. The fighting issue then boils down to a battle of the competing experts. 

As the factfinder, it was up to the district court to decide which expert it found more 

 

13 See Stenzel, 827 N.W.2d at 703 (considering actuarial assessments along with 

an expert’s clinical judgment to find substantial evidence supporting a finding that 

the respondent was a sexually violent predator); In re Det. of Hill, No. 07-1379, 

2008 WL 2520810, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. June 25, 2008) (same).
7

convincing.14 The district court found the State’s expert more convincing. As the 

district court “is in a better position to weigh the credibility of the witnesses” than 

we are, we “readily defer to the district court’s judgment” when there is a battle of 

experts.15

IV. Conclusion

The evidence presented at trial, including the testimony of the State’s expert 

that the district court found more convincing, constitutes substantial evidence 

supporting the district court’s finding that Welsh is a sexually violent predator. In 

particular, there is substantial evidence supporting the finding that Welsh has 

serious difficulty controlling his behavior. As a result, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

 

14 In re Det. of Altman, 723 N.W.2d 181, 185 (Iowa 2006). 

15 State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 685 (Iowa 2000).