Opinion ID: 1958490
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: A. Claim. Betsworth contends there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that he was a sexually violent predator because his offenses were not predatory, as that term is defined in chapter 229A. This contention requires that we interpret the statutory definition, and then determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the respondent was a sexually violent predator. B. Standards of review. We have already set forth the principles that guide our interpretation of statutes. Our review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is for the correction of errors of law. See In re Detention of Swanson, 668 N.W.2d at 574. 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 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. Id. (citations omitted). C. Interpretation of statute. As noted above, a sexually violent predator is defined in relevant part as a person who suffers from a mental abnormality which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts constituting sexually violent offenses. See Iowa Code § 229A.1(11) (emphasis added). The term 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(6). Betsworth claims the evidence does not establish that he is likely to commit predatory acts because (1) he does not form relationships with victims, and (2) he does not have the capacity to form the required purpose of victimization due to his mental condition. 1. Relationship requirement. Chapter 229A does not define the term relationship. The dictionary defines this word as a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1916 (unabr. ed. rev.2002). This definition has no temporal requirement with respect to the length of the relations or dealings between the offender and his victim or with respect to the quality or quantity of interaction necessary to create a relationship. Therefore, we think the legislature, in using the term relationship, was simply referring to an offender's engagement or dealing with the other person. As noted above, we must interpret this statute in a manner consistent with legislative intent and with the goal of avoiding an absurd result. A primary purpose of this statute is the protection of the public. See Iowa Code § 229A.1. If this court were to adopt a narrow interpretation of the term relationship, as suggested by the respondent, sexual offenders whose victims were strangers would not fall within the reach of chapter 229A. This result would be illogical and absurd. We refuse to adopt an interpretation of the statute that would produce this outcome. 2. Purpose of victimization. We also reject the notion that some level of mental capacity for the formation of an intent to victimize is required by the purpose of victimization language of section 229A.2(6). A purpose is simply an object, effect, or result aimed at, intended, or attained. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1847. To interpret the act as requiring intent would unjustifiably narrow the scope of the statute, eliminating a group of sexual offendersthose whose mental abnormality precludes the formation of an intent to do a particular act for a specific purposewho are just as dangerous to the public and just as much in need of treatment as those offenders capable of forming an intent. Thus, we interpret the statute to mean that an act is predatory if the respondent's engagement or dealing with another person is primarily aimed at victimizing the person in a sexual manner. D. Sufficiency of the evidence. Dr. Doren, the State's expert, testified to his opinion that three of the four prior offenses by the respondent were predatory in nature. The non-predatory offense was not described in any detail in the record, but apparently involved Betsworth's wife. In the other three cases involving the staff member, the fellow patient, and the clerk-of-court employee, the respondent had had very little interaction with or was a stranger to the victims when he preyed upon them. Dr. Doren opined that the offenses involving these victims were predatory. The respondent took the stand and denied he had committed the offenses of which he had been convicted. He did, however, admit to thinking about sex all the time and to fantasizing about having sex with any woman he could. A staff member who testified said Betsworth referred to female staff members as his bitches. Betsworth relies heavily upon a statement by Dr. Doren that the respondent's behaviors since July 2000 seem almost of an involuntary nature. When this comment is considered in the context of the entire answer of which it is a part, it is apparent the doctor's statement that Betsworth's conduct seemed almost involuntary was the doctor's shorthand way of expressing the very significant problem Betsworth has with his volitional capacity. Therefore, we do not think this ambiguous comment stands for the proposition that Betsworth's actions lacked a purpose or goal. After having reviewed the record, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that Betsworth's dealings with his victims were primarily aimed at using them for his own sexual purposes. Therefore, the evidence was also adequate to support the finding that the respondent was likely to engage in acts of a predatory nature beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the respondent may be moved to engage in such acts as a result of his brain disorder does not diminish the predatory nature of his conduct.