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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT