State v. Seidt, No. WD
| Decision Date | 26 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. WD |
| Citation | 805 S.W.2d 737 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David Michael SEIDT, Appellant. 43238. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John H. Norton, Norton, White & Norton, Kansas City, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before TURNAGE, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BRECKENRIDGE, JJ.
David Seidt was found to be a criminal sexual psychopath, § 202.700 to § 202.770, RSMo 1969, in November, 1977. Seidt filed his petition for release in February, 1989, and the court denied the motion. Seidt contends the judgment is not supported by the evidence and that because a psychiatrist testified that he should be released the court erred in refusing to order his release. Affirmed.
Seidt was charged with forcible rape which occurred in May, 1977. Between January, 1977, and May, 1977, Seidt committed five rapes. A petition was filed in November, 1977, seeking to have Seidt declared a criminal sexual psychopath. Two psychiatrists testified that Seidt should be declared a criminal sexual psychopath and receive treatment for that condition. The court found Seidt to be a criminal sexual psychopath and ordered him committed.
In January, 1980, Seidt filed a petition for release and the court ordered Seidt released on probation for five years. In October, 1984, Seidt was arrested after breaking into a home in Kansas City and attacking a woman. Thereafter, the court revoked Seidt's probation and committed him to the custody of the Department of Mental Health.
In February, 1989, Seidt filed his petition for release. At the hearing held on that petition a social worker from the St. Joseph State Hospital testified that Seidt had been a cooperative patient and had not violated any rules. Seidt's wife testified that she desired to have Seidt at home. Thereafter, the court ordered the Director of the Department of Mental Health to designate two members of his staff to examine Seidt and determine his present mental condition. The reports of those examinations were filed. Both reports recommended that Seidt be given a conditional release. Neither report gave an opinion of whether Seidt would pose a danger to society outside of the controlled environment of the state hospital.
The court entered extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law which recited the extensive history of Seidt, including his numerous sex crimes. The court noted that the Department of Mental Health had been wrong in 1980 when it recommended that Seidt be released, and concluded that the court believed the Department was wrong again when it recommended that Seidt be released in this proceeding. The court noted that when released Seidt would have access to pornography, drugs, and alcohol which had all played a significant role in his deviate sexual behavior. The court found that Seidt's proposed employment with a carpet store in Kansas City would allow him access to private homes where he has, in the past, committed bizarre sexual acts.
Seidt first contends that the State did not produce any evidence to show that his release would not be incompatible with the welfare of society and therefore the judgment is not supported by evidence and must be reversed. Seidt's petition for release was filed under § 632.475, RSMo 1986, which provides that persons committed as criminal sexual psychopaths under statutes in effect prior to August 13, 1980, shall remain committed, but may file a petition setting forth facts showing that the person has improved to the extent that his release "will not be incompatible to the welfare of society." In State v. Lieurance, 780 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo.App.1989), the court held that review of a judgment entered on a petition for release pursuant to § 632.475 is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32[1-3] (Mo. banc 1976). In State v. Quillar, 683 S.W.2d 656, 658[5-7] (Mo.App.1984), this court held that the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Talbert
...by the State, even though it may be uncontradicted, and may find the State failed to meet its burden of proof. State v. Seidt, 805 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Mo.App.1991). Based upon this premise and the record before us, we are unable to conclude that the trial court's ruling was clearly The order o......
-
State v. Boyd, ED74990
...credibility of any witnesses and its right to believe or disbelieve any evidence, or portion thereof, presented to it. State v. Seidt, 805 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Mo.App. 1991); State v. Connor, 651 S.W.2d 550, 555-56 (Mo.App. 1983); see also State v. Kriley, 976 S.W.2d 16, 19 (Mo.App. 1998). Neve......
-
State v. Boyd
...credibility of any witnesses and its right to believe or disbelieve any evidence, or portion thereof, presented to it. State v. Seidt, 805 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Connor, 651 S.W.2d 550, 555-56 (Mo.App.1983); see also State v. Kriley, 976 S.W.2d 16, 19 (Mo.App.1998). Neverth......
-
State v. Lieurance
...dangerous if released, and the state did not meet its burden." This issue was resolved contrary to petitioner's claim in State v. Seidt, 805 S.W.2d 737 (Mo.App.1991). The western district of this court held at l.c. [T]he party asserting the affirmative of the issue bears the burden of proof......