NOVEMBER 17, 2003

IOWA SUPREME COURT

Competency hearing not required for sexually violent predator prior to hearing

In re the detention of Cubbage, 671 N.W.2d 442 (Sup. Ct. No. 08-0850) (Iowa 11/13/03) Sexually violent predator trial:  competency not required of subject during trial to determine status.  An individual has neither a statutory nor a constitutional right to be competent during the course of proceedings to determine whether the individual is a sexually violent predator.  The statute authorizing counsel in criminal proceedings does not apply because the Sexually Violent Predator Act is civil in nature.  Likewise, individuals do not have a “fundamental” due process right to be competent during SVPA proceedings, and there is a rational basis between the governmental purpose and the means chosen to advance the purpose such that the statute “passes muster under the rational basis review”.  As such, Cubbage suffered no deprivation of any constitutional due process rights in the denial of a pretrial evaluation of his competency to stand trial. 

 Harassment and stalking convictions upheld

State v. Evans, 671 N.W.2d 720 (Sup. Ct. No. 02-0668) (Iowa 11/13/03)  [1]  Harassment – threat to victim not necessary.  “Threatening the victim is not a necessary element of our harassment statute.”  Instead, the statute forbids a person from “personally and without legitimate purpose … [having] personal contact with another person, with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or alarm that other person.” Sufficient evidence that defendant intended to alarm the victim existed where, prior to showing up twice (two counts) at the victim’s home (one time to ask her if she would be willing to play a dominant female role in a pictorial he was producing and one time appearing in high heels with painted toenails to leave a message that he wanted to take photographs of her) defendant contacted the victim repeatedly, requesting that she submit to photography of her feet, with additional strange approaches between and after the two acts charged.  [2]  Stalking –sufficiency.  Defendant’s conviction for stalking the victim, described above, was supported by substantial evidence.  [3]  Venue – no error in failing to change.  Where, as here (especially without a record of voir dire) there is no evidence of actual prejudice nor was the publicity surrounding trial so pervasive that prejudice must be presumed, no error occurs in the court’s refusal to change trial venue.  [4]  Consecutive sentences – no abuse.  No abuse of discretion in imposing consecutive sentences based on defendant’s recidivism, his lack of remorse, and the effect of his behavior on others.  See also October cases -- same defendant's additional convictions upheld dealing with similar behavior.