ILNews

Judges uphold sexually violent predator status

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a defendant failed to establish that the process used to determine his sexually violent predator status constituted a fundamental error, so the court upheld the SVP status.

In Keiyun L. Mays v. State of Indiana, 45A04-1205-CR-287, Keiyun Mays was sentenced to 15 years in prison for Class B felony criminal confinement and found to be a SVP. Mays attacked his ex-girlfriend’s sister in the middle of the night with a tire iron and stabbed her several times. He argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him, the state produced insufficient evidence to sustain the SVP finding, and the SVP interview process violated his right against self-incrimination as to constitute fundamental error.

The Court of Appeals rejected all of Mays’ arguments.

Mays was charged with several crimes, including rape, for which he was not convicted. He argued the trial court considered his rape charge based on the court’s sentencing order, which erroneously indicated the jury found him guilty of rape. But that is just a scrivener’s error and the order issued by the court at the end of the trial clearly shows the jury did not convict him of rape.

The judges declined to reweigh the evidence regarding whether the state produced sufficient evidence to sustain the SVP finding, and found the trial court did not commit fundamental error by admitting statements Mays made to two court-appointed psychiatrists who examined Mays to determine whether he was an SVP. Mays told one doctor he intended to rape D.K. and told another doctor his motive for his crime was sexual. He did not object to the admittance of these statements during the SVP evaluation process.

“… the SVP procedure here was a post-conviction evaluation that did not produce any admissions that contributed to any criminal convictions, only, in this case, to the determination of Mays’s SVP status,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote. “…Mays was informed prior to trial that he had the right to remain silent and that anything he said could be used against him.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT