Opinion ID: 2621842
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: burden of proof applied by the district court

Text: [¶ 30] Appellant argues that the district court misstated the applicable burden of proof, citing the following excerpt from the district court's decision letter: The Court recognizes the heavy burden which Mr. Reiter must meet to gain Court acceptance of any release, but such burden is necessary for the protection of the public. According to appellant, this statement is erroneous to a degree that we should either remand the case so the district court can reconsider the evidence utilizing the preponderance of the evidence standard or we should do so in the district court's stead. [¶ 31] The district court was certainly versed in the applicable burden of proof. At the outset of the hearing on appellant's discharge application, counsel for appellant raised an issue regarding which party bore the burden of proof in that proceeding. The district court ruled that appellant bore the burden of proof to establish his fitness for discharge, and he has to meet that by a preponderance of the evidence. In its December 17, 1999, decision letter denying appellant's discharge application, the district court stated that it had reviewed the applicable statutes and the case law on the issues presented, and cited the pertinent statutory provisions, including that appellant `shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence his fitness for discharge.' Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-306(f). [¶ 32] We are unable to discern from the single statement isolated by appellant that the district court misstated or otherwise utilized an improper burden of proof. The isolated statement appears in a paragraph detailing appellant's established history which indicates a strong tendency to cease his medication once he is released from medical treatment. Further, on each occasion, his relapse has resulted in increasingly violent criminal behavior. The district court then referred to evidence that appellant did not fit within established statistical patterns, that, contrary to the norm, his violent behavior increased with age, and concluded that any inference that [appellant] will continue his medication is pure speculation, and such speculation is inappropriate given the [appellant's] past history. In this context, the isolated statement would appear merely to refer to appellant's heavy burden in light of the evidence comprising such an established history and its resulting implications, rather than stating or applying an entirely different standard of proof. Even if we were inclined to review the district court's factual findings according to the preponderance standard, appellant does not present any cogent argument, aside from a legal discussion of the preponderance standard itself, regarding whether the district court's factual findings satisfy the preponderance standard. [¶ 33] The district court's order denying appellant's discharge application and denying appellant's declaratory judgment motion are affirmed.