Opinion ID: 901462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Inclination to Re-offend

Text: [¶36.] Blair argues that Curran's sex offender evaluation and the court services officer's pre-sentence investigation offer significant evidence that he was at low risk to re-offend, and therefore a lower sentence was required. The relevant factors Blair argues the circuit court failed to consider were the low to moderate score he received on the sex offender evaluation; and the court services officer's assessment of Blair's candor, his assessment that Blair's crimes were on the lower end of the scale for sex offenses, and his sentencing recommendation. [¶37.] The psychological assessment conducted by Curran included two different instruments, the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-II) [12] and the Sexual Adjustment Inventory (SAI), which, according to her report, is designed to identify sexually deviate and paraphiliac [13] behavior in people accused or convicted of sexual offense. [¶38.] Curran reported that when responding to questions on the MMPI-II, Blair attempted to place himself in an overly positive light by minimizing faults and denying psychological problems. Blair's MMPI-II profile was, with appropriate correction, within the normal range. However, Curran's report goes on to state that as a result of Blair's minimization of faults and denial of psychological problems, the assessments may be an underestimate of Mr. Blair's psychological problems. [¶39.] Curran's report also states that Blair was untruthful in his responses on the SAI. The directions to the assessment specifically state not to give false information as court records may be used for verification. Yet despite the warning in the instructions, Blair's responses were anything but true. Blair reported zero arrests, yet his court records indicated four arrests. Similarly, Blair answered zero for the number of lifetime misdemeanor convictions, zero for the number of times on probation, zero for the number of times in jail, zero for the number of sex related arrests and zero for alcohol related arrests. However, Blair's court records indicate each of these items should have been answered with a one. [¶40.] Curran discussed these self-reported discrepancies in her report, and stated that [t]here was insufficient time to rerun the data to determine the effect these inaccuracies might have had on the overall results. The results reported are those obtained assuming the data initially provided was truthful. Curran further stated [t]hese results imply that Mr. Blair is not a rapist and that he has a low probability for sexual assault. Curran also stated that Blair scored in the medium risk range (forty to sixty-nine percentile) on the sexual adjustment scale, ranking in the fifty-sixth percentile. Curran indicated that [s]ome caution and concern are evident regarding this person's sexual adjustment responses. Finally, Curran reported that Blair's test results suggest that he is exhibiting psychological dysfunction of mild to moderate severity, but qualified this by noting that it is impossible to know how much, if at all, his SAI scores would have been affected had the correct background information been provided. [¶41.] Blair has attempted to characterize the report as strong positive mitigating evidence, as it contains an expert opinion that he is a low risk on the sexual assault scale, child molestation scale, and incest scale. While that may be true based on his responses as captured on the MMPI-II and SAI administered by Curran, it is obvious that Blair was less than truthful on each of these diagnostic tools, a fact not lost on the circuit court. [¶42.] Next, Blair argues that the circuit court did not consider the court services officer's sentencing recommendation. He contends that the court services officer's recommendation of a considerable amount of time with most of it suspended and with some specific recommendations to the parole board upon release is entitled to greater weight than it was given by the circuit court. Blair argues that the court services officer had substantial experience in dealing with and interviewing defendants, and had no reason to sugar coat his opinions and reports. [¶43.] While the court services officer did recommend a more lenient sentence, his final recommendation included a concession that he could not be sure [Blair's sex crimes] would not have escalated into something more serious and perverted. . . . The veteran officer also noted that while Blair was very open and talkative, whether or not he was truthful is very hard to say as `sex offenders' are the biggest `cons' and are usually very convincing. [¶44.] The circuit court is entitled to great discretion in weighing evidence. Based on the evidence before it, the circuit court found that Blair presented a greater risk to re-offend than either Curran or the court services officer concluded. Their conclusions were based on what the circuit court determined to be less than truthful responses from Blair given in an attempt to place himself in an overly positive light. [¶45.] In its analysis of Blair's likelihood to re-offend, the circuit court heavily focused on the escalation of Blair's conduct the night of his daughter's sleepover. Blair attempted to get two of the girls to discuss masturbation with him, and to show him their breasts. Blair did so by engaging them in an all-night therapy session using skills developed as a youth advisor and counselor, and his position as an authority figure, as tools to manipulate these two fifteen-year-old girls under the guise of educating them for their own benefit. Compare State v. Mitchell, 491 NW2d 438, 439-440 (SD 1992) (rejecting the defendant's proffered justification for repeatedly raping his stepdaughter that he was preparing her for dating); Mitchell v. Class, 524 NW2d 860, 861 (SD 1994) (affirming thirty-year sentence on six counts of rape, rejecting defendant's explanation that he was educating his stepdaughter on intercourse). Although no sexual contact occurred that evening, it was not for want of trying on Blair's part as he repeatedly asked the two girls to show him their breasts, rubbed one of the girls' on her upper thigh, grabbed both girls' buttocks, and exposed his penis to them. The circuit court did not err when it gave greater weight to this evidence than the evidence generated from Blair's less than truthful responses to Curran and the court services officer.