Court Opinion

ID: 9779824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:49:42.370937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:42.313973
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WRIGHT, specially concurring: In this appeal, the record does not demonstrate that Bailey objected when the trial court scheduled matters related to the civil petition on the same date as matters related to the pretrial criminal proceedings. Nor does it appear to me that Bailey included this issue in his posttrial motion requesting a new trial on the sexually-dangerous-person petition. Instead, the record suggests the parties mutually participated in the simultaneous pretrial proceedings without objection. Thus, I respectfully conclude that the issue has been waived and was not properly preserved for our review. However, assuming this issue of simultaneous pretrial proceedings has not been waived, I agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case. Finally, after considering all of the evidence introduced by the State during trial on the State’s sexually-dangerous-person petition alone, in the light most favorable to the State, I share the author’s view regarding the sufficiency of the State’s evidence in this case. Therefore, I agree that the trial court’s decision, declaring Bailey to be a sexually dangerous person as defined by the Act, must be affirmed.