Cited by

Even so, “good behavior in the artificial environment of, in this case, a prison, is not conclusive on the question of dangerousness to the public, when experts testify the proposed patient remains mentally ill and dangerous.” d 366, 374 (Minn. App. 1995) (quotations omitted) (affirming an initial civil commitment), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995); WL 612320, at *5-6 (Minn. App. Feb.

(explaining that commitment proceedings are civil in nature and that the Confrontation Clause applies only in criminal cases), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

See, (noting that commitment proceedings are civil in nature and that the Confrontation Clause applies only in criminal cases), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

8 (deeming inadequately briefed issue to be forfeited); (holding that where appellant fails to specifically identify exhibits to which he objects, inadequate brief results in forfeiture of issue), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

at 669; (stating that patient has right to counsel under Minn. Stat. § 253B.03, subd.

This court affirmed the CAP’s decision, concluding that (1) based on our prior decisions— rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995), and In re Civ.

We rejected both arguments, concluding that (1) based on our prior decisions—d 366, 371 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995), and In re Civ.

Benson, 2023 WL 3807476, at *3 (following ).

rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

30, 1995); rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995); Bieganowski, d at 529-30.

-75 (Minn. App. 1995) (affirming appellant’s civil commitment as an SPP and as mentally ill and dangerous despite a lack of harmful criminal acts while appellant was imprisoned), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

30, 1995); rev. denied (Minn. 3 Camacho also argues that the definitions of SDP and SPP are mutually exclusive because an SPP must have an “utter lack of power to control the person’s sexual impulses,” whereas an SDP need not have “an inability to control the person’s sexual impulses.” Compare Mi

30, 1995); rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995); rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

See Pirkl, d at 907-08; rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995); d 525, 529-30 (Minn. App. 1994), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995) .

30, 1995); In re Irwin , d 366, 375 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995); -30 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Oct.

30, 1995); -76 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995); -30 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Oct.

(waiving issue when it was n ot 9 supported by citation to legal authority); (issues deemed waived because they were not adequately argued or briefed), review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

See In re Irwin , review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995) .

30, 1995); review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995); -30 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Oct.

30, 1995); review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995); –30 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Oct.

Each protection that Danforth claims is required by Specht has later been held to not be required at civil commitment proceedings: the Confrontation Clause does not apply, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required, Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 430–31, 99 S. Ct. 1804, 1811– 12 (1979), and there is no privilege against self-incrimination, Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 374, 106 S. Ct. 2988, 2994–95 (1986).

(finding that appellant’s failure to attend commitment hearings, which were scheduled within the deadline, resulted in a waiver because “[i]t would be an unreasonable result to permit a proposed patient to *431 avoid commitment simply by not appearing in court.”); (noting that “[a] patient may waive [the] requirements” of section 253B.08), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995); (finding waiver of the section 253B.08, subdivision 1 deadlines), aff'd

17, 2002); (stating that conduct need not be recent), review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 1995) (finding argument waived where appellant failed to specifically identify evidence to which he objected in brief).

In re Irwin, *838 review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

(issue not adequately argued or briefed on appeal deemed waived), review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995); Midway Ctr.

review denied (Minn. May 16,1995)..

review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

See City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277 , 279 n. 1, , 644 n. 1 (1977) (supreme court would not consider issue when party provided only minimal explanation of contention on appeal and cited no supporting authority); (issue not adequately argued or briefed on appeal deemed waived), review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).