Again, this evidence was admitted without objection, and an objection may not be interposed for the first time on appeal. III Mentzos challenges the merits of his commitment as a sexually dangerous person. The state must prove the need for commitment with clear and convincing evidence. Factual findings will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Whether the record supports the district court's conclusions that a person requires civil commitment is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.
Ample evidence supports all three elements.
A rebuttable presumption of this element arises from a conviction under criminal sexual conduct statutes, or other crimes prompted by the defendant's sexual impulses, or a pattern of behavior with criminal sexual conduct as a goal. Mentzos' convictions for third degree sexual conduct, which were never denied, satisfy the first element. Id. Mentzos argues that this statutory presumption of harm violates his right to due process. Again, we face problems imposed by the limited record. Mentzos did not raise this challenge in the district court.