59-29a01.
Kansas sexually violent predator act; civil commitment of sexually violent predators; legislative findings; time requirements directory.
(a) The legislature finds that there exists an extremely dangerous group of sexually violent predators who have a mental abnormality or personality disorder and who are likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence if not treated for their mental abnormality or personality disorder. Because the existing civil commitment procedures under K.S.A. 59-2901 et seq., and amendments thereto, are inadequate to address the special needs of sexually violent predators and the risks they present to society, the legislature determines that a separate involuntary civil commitment process for the potentially long-term control, care and treatment of sexually violent predators is necessary. The legislature also determines that because of the nature of the mental abnormalities or personality disorders from which sexually violent predators suffer and the dangers they present, it is necessary to house involuntarily committed sexually violent predators in an environment separate from persons involuntarily committed under K.S.A. 59-2901 et seq., and amendments thereto.
(b) Notwithstanding any other evidence of legislative intent, it is hereby declared that any time requirements set forth in K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq., and amendments thereto, either as originally enacted or as amended, are intended to be directory and not mandatory and serve as guidelines for conducting proceedings under K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq., and amendments thereto.
(c) The provisions of K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq. and amendments thereto, shall be known and may be cited as the Kansas sexually violent predator act.
History:
L. 1994, ch. 316, § 1; L. 1999, ch. 140, § 1; L. 2003, ch. 152, § 1; L. 2015, ch. 95, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
In Re the Care & Treatment of Sykes, 367 P.3d 1244 (Kan. 2016).
· cites it 11× “Based on the challenge in this case, the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq., complies with constitutional requirements for substantive and procedural due process.”
In Re the Care & Treatment of Williams, 253 P.3d 327 (Kan. 2011).
· cites it 8× “: This appeal raises the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to support a district court's determination that an individual is a sexually violent predator pursuant to *329 the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq. The Court of Appeals held the…”
In re the Care & Treatment of Hendricks, 912 P.2d 129 (Kan. 1996).
· cites it 11× “: Leroy Hendricks appeals from a jury finding that he is a sexually violent predator as defined in the Sexually Violent Predator Act (the Act), K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq., and from the district court’s order of commitment, which was issued pursuant to that finding.”
Griffin v. Bruffett, 389 P.3d 992 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 9× “A general examination of the annual review process for persons confined under the SVPA.”
In Re the Care & Treatment of Hunt, 82 P.3d 861 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 7× “Each of these men was found to be a sexually violent predator and civilly committed for treatment pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq. Each now argues that he should be discharged because his trial did not begin within 60 days of his…”
In re Care & Treatment of Easterberg, 437 P.3d 964 (Kan. 2019).
· cites it 7× “In a proceeding to commit a person under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (KSVPA), K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 59-29a01 et seq., the State has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the individual has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense,…”
State v. Petersen-Beard, 377 P.3d 1127 (Kan. 2016).
· cites it 2× “In another area deemed to be a civil regulatory statutory scheme, the Sexually Violent Predator Act, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 59-29a01 et seq., the legislature made a provision for the civil commitment of a qualifying person, even where that person was deemed incompetent to stand trial…”
In Re the Care & Treatment of Emerson, 369 P.3d 327 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 12× “To decide this issue, we must interpret K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review.”
Bd. of Leavenworth Cnty. Comm'rs v. Whitson, 132 P.3d 920 (Kan. 2006).
· cites it 6× “This case arises out of Leroy Hendricks' successful application to move into Phase 6 of the treatment program set up by the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS), pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, K.”
In Re the Care & Treatment of Miller, 210 P.3d 625 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Miller's indefinite civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq. (the Act). He argues that the district judge erred in denying his motion to stipulate to a prior sex crime case; erred in admitting evidence of other prior crimes or civil wrongs,…”
Merryfield v. State, 241 P.3d 573 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “: For more than a decade, Dustin Merryfield has been confined at the Lamed State Hospital under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, K.S.A. 59-29a01 etseq. He has filed a habeascorpus petition under K.”
Johnson v. State, 215 P.3d 575 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Further, the Kansas Legislature and the United States Supreme Court have decided that a diagnosis of pedophilia can be among the justifications for indefinite restriction of an offender’s liberty to ensure the provision of treatment to him or her and the protection of others who…”
— K.S.A. § 59-29a01(1994) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 59-29a01(a) — 3 cases
— K.S.A. § 59-29a01(b) — 7 cases
Griffin v. Bruffett, 389 P.3d 992 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
“A general examination of the annual review process for persons confined under the SVPA.”
In Re the Care & Treatment of Emerson, 369 P.3d 327 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
“To decide this issue, we must interpret K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.