01-1032 In Re the Commitment of Rickey Gray: State v. Gray

Listen to this article

Rickey Gray appeals from a judgment and an order for commitment in a ch. 980 case, after a jury found that he was a sexually violent person, and the trial court ordered him committed. He claims that: (1) he had a right to be present when the decision to strike the alternate juror was made; (2) a new trial is required in the interest of justice because the issue of whether he was a sexual sadist was not fully tried; (3) a new trial is needed in the interest of justice because the primary actuarial instrument used to show him to be a high risk has been shown not to be predictive of sexually violent reoffending; (4) the State failed to prove that his inability to exercise volitional control makes it difficult, if not impossible, for him to control his sexually violent behavior; (5) the trial court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury that it had to make a specific finding that he lacks volitional control; (6) a new trial in the interest of justice is required because the real controversy of whether he lacks volitional control was not fully tried; and (7) ch. 980 is unconstitutional if it does not require a finding of lack of volitional control.

Because we resolve each issue in favor of upholding the judgment and order, we affirm.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Konkol, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Jack E. Schairer, Madison

For Respondent: Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; Marguerite M. Moeller, Madison