In re Sigler

Decision Date06 September 2019
Docket NumberNo. 118,914,118,914
Citation448 P.3d 368
Parties In the MATTER OF the Care and Treatment of Robert J. SIGLER.
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Dwight R. Carswell, assistant solicitor general, argued the cause, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, was with him on the brief for appellee.

Luckert, J.:

This appeal results from the State's second attempt to have Robert J. Sigler found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) and civilly committed under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 59-29a01 et seq. Sigler raises issues about res judicata and collateral estoppel and alleges prejudicial conduct calling for a mistrial. On the first issue, we hold this action is not barred by the res judicata doctrine because a material change of circumstances occurred that differentiates the second action from the first. We also reject Sigler's second argument because, although an error occurred when a witness inaccurately stated that Sigler had been "actually civilly committed once, and then his commitment was overturned by an appeals court," the State and the district court took sufficient curative steps to counter the potential prejudice. The district court, therefore, did not err by not declaring a mistrial.

We thus affirm the district court and the Court of Appeals. See In re Sigler , No. 118914, 2018 WL 5728261, at *1 (Kan. App. 2018) (unpublished opinion).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2007, a district court sentenced Sigler to 84 months' imprisonment following his convictions for criminal sodomy with a child 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age, indecent solicitation of a child, and furnishing alcohol to a minor for illicit purposes. In 2013, before Sigler's release from prison, the State petitioned for a civil commitment order under the SVPA.

The 2015 SVPA trial

The SVPA action went to trial, after which the district court issued a journal entry of judgment summarizing its conclusions about the four SVP elements. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 59-29a02(a) (defining "Sexually violent predator" to mean [1] any person convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense; [2] the person suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder; [3] the mental abnormality or personality disorder "makes the person likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence"; and [4] the person has serious difficulty controlling his or her dangerous behavior); In re Care & Treatment of Williams , 292 Kan. 96, 106, 253 P.3d 327 (2011) ("[These] statutory requirements ... impose four elements that must be proven to establish that an individual is a sexually violent predator.").

The court noted the parties had not disputed the first element of proof because Sigler had a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 59-29a02(e)(4) (defining "Sexually violent offense" to include criminal sodomy). The district court thus focused its analysis on the remaining three elements.

As to the second element—whether Sigler suffered from mental abnormalities supporting his involuntary commitment under the SVPA—both the State and Sigler presented expert testimony. One State expert diagnosed Sigler under the DSM-5 with pedophilia, sexually attracted to males, nonexclusive type; borderline personality disorder, with antisocial features; voyeurism; alcohol dependence, without physiological dependence in a controlled environment; and amphetamine dependence, without physiological dependence in a controlled environment. Another State expert diagnosed Sigler with other specified paraphilic disorder, hebephilia, frotteurism, and voyeurism; other specified personality disorder, histrionic and borderline; methamphetamine use disorder, remission in a controlled environment; alcohol use disorder, remission in a controlled environment; and depressive disorder by history.

Sigler's expert disagreed with these diagnoses, finding "nothing in his current functioning or in his history that would justify" the pedophilia or hebephilia diagnoses. The district court ultimately concluded the State proved Sigler suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder beyond a reasonable doubt.

The district court then considered whether the State carried its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Sigler was likely to commit repeat acts of sexual violence because of a mental abnormality or personality disorder—the third element of the SVP definition. Both State experts evaluated Sigler's likelihood of recidivism using the Static-99R, an actuarial risk assessment tool. Both rated Sigler at a risk level of 4, which placed him in the moderate category for reoffending under the Static-99R's scoring criteria. Sigler's expert opined the Static-99R does not reliably assess the risk of reoffending, but if he rated Sigler, he would rate him below a 4. He also opined a score of 4 on the Static-99R is low. The district court found the State failed to meet its burden on this element. In reaching this conclusion, the district court highlighted the Static-99R test results and the State's own expert's recommendation for GPS monitoring and strict supervision even though the same expert had recommended civil commitment in other cases.

The district court finally turned to the fourth element of whether the State proved Sigler has serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. The district court reviewed both sides' experts' testimony and Sigler's testimony about his treatment and efforts to address his past sexually violent behavior. Based on this review, the district court determined the State also failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt and denied the State's petition to commit Sigler.

The district court ordered Sigler released to parole on July 13, 2015. About four months later, Sigler was arrested for parole violations and was returned to prison for a 90-day sanction.

The 2016 petition

Just before Sigler's release from custody, the State filed a second petition to commit Sigler. In the State's February 29, 2016, petition it alleged Sigler's parole violations constituted a material change in his condition and ability to control his behavior, which supported civil commitment even though the court had previously rejected its commitment petition after the 2015 trial.

Sigler asked the district court to conclude a second proceeding was barred by principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel. The district court analyzed any preclusive bar under In re Care & Treatment of Sporn , 289 Kan. 681, 215 P.3d 615 (2009), and In re Care & Treatment of Johnson , 32 Kan. App. 2d 525, 85 P.3d 1252 (2004). The district court noted the only new information the State provided was about Sigler's performance on parole and the reported parole violations. But the court determined this evidence was sufficient to find a material change in Sigler's condition since its 2015 determination denying the State's first commitment petition. The district court specifically cited Sigler's use of Facebook and viewing pornography within one month of being released on parole as violations of his parole conditions. The district court also noted violations arising from Sigler's possessing an Instagram account that he used to view explicit material, viewing of child pornography, and having a consensual sexual relationship with an adult male without first obtaining a required third-party notification. Based on these facts, the district court determined res judicata did not bar a second commitment proceeding.

The district court held a jury trial in February 2017. The State called several witnesses who had contact with Sigler during his parole and two experts. Sigler testified on his own behalf and called his own expert.

Logan Hall supervised Sigler's parole. In August 2015, Hall confronted Sigler about Sigler's Facebook profile. Hall believed this to be a parole violation. Sigler's parole conditions barred the use of chat rooms, bulletin boards, or social networking sites, including Facebook, "for the purpose of accessing sexually explicit or erotic material or contacting any person for purposes of sexual gratification." While Sigler had a Facebook page, no evidence in the record establishes he used it in a manner restricted by his parole conditions.

Sigler, however, did violate another parole condition in September 2015 by driving a coworker, who was a minor, home after work. The next day, Sigler learned the coworker was in high school. Being alone with a minor violated Sigler's parole conditions. Sigler disclosed the violation to Hall who described this as "a fairly minor violation."

In November 2015, Hall learned Sigler opened an Instagram account. Hall and Brandi Laudermilk, who oversaw Sigler's sex offender treatment program while he was on parole, viewed pages, profiles, or accounts Sigler had liked, friended, or followed. This review revealed images of males partially or completely nude. Sigler later admitted to viewing pornographic websites, some of which may have depicted male minors between the ages of 14 and 17. Sigler also admitted he masturbated while looking at the material. Hall had recommended Sigler's probation be revoked.

Laudermilk addressed the reasons Sigler was discharged from his sex offender treatment program while on parole. She characterized Sigler as having trouble maintaining a low risk of reoffending while under treatment. His Instagram account, which led to the seizure of his computer, prompted the discharge from the program. But Sigler also did not disclose information relevant to his treatment, such as sexually arousing dreams involving children. She testified she had discussed the risk of viewing pornography with Sigler. She described the sex-offending cycle and methods she discussed with Sigler to stop such behaviors at thoughts before they became fantasies and later progressed into actions. Laudermilk was concerned the behavior ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Timley
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • August 7, 2020
    ...his due process rights by removing a valid option from the jury. We review such claims de novo. See, e.g., In re Care & Treatment of Sigler , 310 Kan. 688, 708, 448 P.3d 368 (2019). Should the court determine that there has been a violation of a defendant's due process right to a fair trial......
  • B.E. v. Pistotnik
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 2022
    ... ... 976, 981-82, 453 P.3d 304 (2019) ...          This ... case also involves application of collateral estoppel ... Whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies is a ... question of law subject to de novo review. In re Care ... &Treatment of Sigler , 310 Kan. 688, 698-99, 448 P.3d ... 368 (2019) ...          As an ... overview, we find the parties' arguments to the district ... court on the summary judgment motion were presented in a ... confusing manner. The prior lawsuit focused on the factual ... ...
  • Smith v. Perez
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • May 27, 2022
    ...action, and (4) identity in the quality of persons for or against whom claim is made.’ [Citation omitted.]" In re Care & Treatment of Sigler , 310 Kan. 688, 699, 448 P.3d 368 (2019). A change in any one of these conditions may render res judicata inapplicable. 310 Kan. at 699.Claim preclusi......
  • State v. Bailey
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • June 10, 2022
    ...issue preclusion, we will consider both doctrines under the general umbrella of res judicata."); see also In re Care & Treatment of Sigler , 310 Kan. 688, 697-98, 448 P.3d 368 (2019) (recognizing res judicata and collateral estoppel as distinct, but closely related, doctrines intended to pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT