Opinion ID: 1763868
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: John Van Orden

Text: John Van Orden was born in 1962. In 1987, Van Orden pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct for his sexual contact with his sixteen-year-old niece and received two years unsupervised probation. In 1992, Van Orden was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse for the abuse of his five-year-old daughter. He was sentenced to four years, and his parental rights were terminated based upon this abuse and the abuse of his four-year-old son. While incarcerated, Van Orden attended a sex offender treatment program but terminated treatment in the second phase. In 1998, he was convicted of first-degree child molestation for abuse of a four-year-old female and was sentenced to seven years. Van Orden completed the first two phases of sex offender treatment and was released on parole in 2004, at which time he stopped attending treatment. Van Orden violated the conditions of his parole and was returned to prison. He was released on parole a second time and was arrested on September 6, 2005 for violating its conditions, including consuming alcohol and receiving unsuccessful termination from sex offender treatment. Van Orden was transported to the Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Center. On October 5, 2005, the department of corrections sent written notice to the attorney general that Van Orden may meet the definition of a sexually violent predator. The state filed its petition for Van Orden's commitment on October 14, 2005. The board of probation and parole issued an order of revocation on October 20, 2005. The court found probable cause and ordered a formal hearing. Van Orden filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that the state failed to strictly comply with section 632.483.1 because the petition was filed prior to the revocation of parole. The trial court overruled the motion and ordered a psychiatric evaluation. Van Orden, similarly to Wheeler, filed a motion to declare the 2006 amendment to section 632.495 unconstitutional because it reduced the burden of proof from beyond a reasonable doubt to clear and convincing evidence. The trial court overruled the motion. A jury trial was held in May 2007. The state's evidence included the testimony of Dr. Mandracchia, a psychologist, who diagnosed Van Orden with pedophilia and anti-social personality disorder and found that he was more likely than not to reoffend if not committed. He based this assessment on the results of the Static-99 actuarial test, which measures a person's likelihood of reoffending, as well as his own assessment of Van Orden's risk factors, including anti-social personality disorder, alcoholism, offense pattern of sexually deviant behavior, and the fact that he offended while under supervision. At the instruction conference, Van Orden objected to the burden of proof on the basis that clear and convincing evidence should be defined. Specifically, Van Orden argued that the instruction should include: Clear and convincing evidence means that you are clearly convinced of the affirmative of the proposition to be proved. This does not mean that there may not be contrary evidence ... For evidence to be clear and convincing it must instantly tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and your mind is left with unabiding conviction that the evidence is true. The trial court overruled the objection and submitted the instructions to the jury without the additional language. The jury found that Van Orden was a sexually violent predator. Judgment of commitment was entered.