Cited by

d 723, 732 (Minn. App. 2001) (concluding that, for purpose of SPP statute, appellant’s prior conduct, “repeated oral and anal sex .

“A person may be committed as [an SPP] on clear and convincing proof that [they] (1) ha[ve] engaged in a habitual course of misconduct in sexual matters; (2) ha[ve] an utter lack of power to control [their] sexual impulses; and (3) [are], therefore, dangerous to others.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd.

“A person may be committed as an SPP based on clear and convincing proof that [they] (1) ha[ve] engaged in a habitual course of misconduct in sexual matters; (2) ha[ve] an utter lack of power to control their sexual impulses; and (3) [are], therefore, dangerous to others.” , rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

In re Kindschy , rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

The question is not whether Camacho’s offenses caused more harm than others like them, but whether they created “a substantial likelihood of serious physical or mental harm.” Preston, d at 113 (quotation omitted)

In addition, a person is “‘dangerous to others’ and subject to commitment as a[n] [SPP] when the person’s pattern of sexual misconduct (1) creates a substantial likelihood of serious physical or emotional harm to others, and (2) is likely to recur because 15 of an utter lack of power to control sexual impulses.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

review denied (Minn. Dec.

creates a substantial likelihood of serious physical or emotional harm to others.” review denied (Minn. Dec.

In re Kindschy , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec.

“Under the current statute, patients have the opportunity 8 to prove that a less-restrictive treatment program is available, but they do not have the right to be assigned to it.” (emphasis omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec.

review denied (Minn. Dec.

“Under the current statute, patients have the opportunity to prove that a less-restrictive treatment program is available, but they do not have the right to be assigned to it.” (emphasis omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec.