Cited by

Commitment of Poole, rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole, rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole, -69 (Minn. App. 2018) (affirming denial of discharge from MSOP when committed person failed to establish that he no longer needed treatment for his “paraphilic disorder” and, as such, remained a danger to the public), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole, -69 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole, rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole, 6 –64, 68–69 (Minn. App. 2018) (reviewing a petition for discharge from a person committed as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and as a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP)), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole, rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole, -69 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole, rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole, -69 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole , rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole, (stating that a party’s own uncorroborated assertions are insufficient to meet that party’s burden of production), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole, -69 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Commitment of Poole , -69 (Minn. App. 2018) (citing several cases supporting th e idea that “[g]enerally, courts have ruled that mere conclusory assertions are insufficient to avoid an adverse ruling”) , rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

Third, “courts have ruled that mere conclusory assertions are insufficient to avoid an adverse ruling.” In re Civil Commitment of Poole , (citing cases in a variety of contex ts and applying this principle to reduction -in- custody civil-commitment cases).

review denied (Minn. Jan.

review denied (Minn. Jan.

See, review denied (Minn. Jan.

Generally, appellate courts reject challe nges to the constitutionality of statutes, including commitment statutes, “unless the challenging party demonstrates that [a statute] is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” -70 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted).

In re Civil Commitment of Poole , -69 (M inn.

not shown signs that he has a mental illness or is dangerous while at MSOP, that he does not have deviant fantasies, that he has never been sexually attracted to children, and that he “never ha d pedophilic disorder.” “[C]onclusory assertions by a committed person,” standing alone, are insufficient “to avoid dismissal of a petition for discharge from MSOP.” review denied (Minn. Jan.

review denied (Minn. Jan.

-69 (Minn. App. 2018) (noting that if courts ac cepted personal assertions the threshold for obtaining second-phase hearings would re st on “committed persons uttering magic words”), review denied (Minn. Jan.

Also, this court has rejected the idea that, “by themselves, conclusory assertions by a committed person are sufficien t to avoid dismissal of a pe tition for discharge from MSOP.” review denied (Minn. Jan.

See In re Civil Commitment of Poole , (applying harmless error analysis to CAP’s decision to co nsider certain evidence), review denied (Minn. Jan.

See Minnesota Civil Commitment and Treatment of Sex Offenders, Minn. Stat. §§ 253D.01-.36 (2018); In re Civil Commitment of Poole , , 65 (Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Jan.

hase I hearing the “better practice” is to “wait until the second -phase hearing before receiving the exhibits, testimony, and other evidence offered by the Commissioner” because “the submission of competing facts by an adverse party makes the application of the ‘viewed in a light most favorable to the committed person’ standard more difficult to apply”); see also In re Commitment of Poole , (holding that the “testimony and reports of a witness called by the panel are not evidence produced by th

In re Civil Commitment of Poole , n.3 (Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Jan.

–69 (Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Jan.