IN RE THE DETENTION OF DEREK E. BLAISE, DEREK E. BLAISE, Respondent - Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-521 / 07-1376
Filed September 17, 2008
IN RE THE DETENTION OF
DEREK E. BLAISE,
DEREK E. BLAISE,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Annette
Scieszinski, Judge.
The respondent appeals from the district court’s order committing him as a
sexually violent predator. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Steven L. Addington,
Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Cristen Douglas, Assistant Attorney
General, Mark Tremmel, County Attorney, and Robert Glaser, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Mahan, JJ.
2
MAHAN, J.
Derek Blaise appeals the jury verdict finding him to be a sexually violent
predator under Iowa Code section 229A.2(11) (2007). We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Blaise was convicted of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse in
2002, and indecent exposure in 1999. He was imprisoned in 2002. In 2005,
while he was still incarcerated, the State petitioned to have Blaise adjudicated a
sexually violent predator subject to civil commitment. See Iowa Code § 229A. In
2007, after a trial, the jury determined that Blaise was a sexually violent predator,
and the court committed him to the custody of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS). On appeal, Blaise challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the jury’s finding.
II. Scope and Standards of Review
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for errors at law.
In re Detention of Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 286 (Iowa 2006).
If there is
substantial evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could find the respondent
to be a sexually violent predator beyond a reasonable doubt, we are bound by
the jury’s finding. Id. To determine whether the evidence was substantial, we
consider the entirety of the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the
State, including all legitimate inferences and presumptions which may be fairly
and reasonably deduced from the record.
In re Detention of Swanson, 668
N.W.2d 570, 574 (Iowa 2003); State v. Yeo, 659 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Iowa 2003).
Evidence is not substantial if it raises only suspicion, speculation, or conjecture.
Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d at 287.
3
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Iowa Code section 229A.2(11) defines a “sexually violent predator” as a
person “who has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense
and who suffers from a mental abnormality which makes the person likely to
engage in predatory acts constituting sexually violent offenses, in not confined in
a secure facility.” A “mental abnormality” is defined as “a congenital or acquired
condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity of a person and
predisposing that person to commit sexually violent offenses to a degree which
would constitute a menace to the health and safety of others.” Id. at § 229A.2(5).
Blaise contends there in not sufficient evidence in the record to show he
has a mental abnormality. At trial, Blaise testified to committing a variety of
sexual offenses and to having nearly one hundred victims, and stated that he has
not taken his treatment seriously. Blaise further testified about committing forced
vaginal sex, threatening a victim not to tell after he raped her, bribing young girls
for oral sex and more. In his brief on appeal, Blaise admits the record shows that
he has repeatedly chosen to engage in criminal sexual behavior.
The State proffered an expert witness, Dr. Anna Salter, who opined that
Blaise had two mental abnormalities: (1) paraphilia not otherwise specified
(NOS); and (2) personality disorder NOS. According to Dr. Salter, both these
mental abnormalities predispose Blaise to commit sexually violent offenses. With
regard to the first abnormality, Dr. Salter stated the paraphilia NOS with which
Blaise is afflicted involves sexual attraction to force and an attraction to
specifically targeted adolescents.
Dr. Salter’s diagnosis was supported by
4
Blaise’s “history of using force, forcing kids to have sex with him.” As Dr. Salter
explained at trial:
So I think if you look at his history and you look at what he says, he
admits that he is specifically attracted, particularly to these young
and mid-age adolescent kids. And that’s what qualifies him for a
diagnosis of Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified, because those two
kinds of deviant sexual interests, an attraction to adolescent[s] and
an attraction to force, are clinically and widely accepted.
With regard to the second abnormality, Dr. Salter stated the personality
disorder NOS with which Blaise is afflicted involves callousness, lack of remorse,
lack of guilt, violence and hostility toward his victims. Dr. Salter’s diagnosis was
supported by the fact that Blaise spent time setting up and planning his crimes,
which included lying, hiding his age, and driving around to pick up adolescent
girls.
Dr. Salter opined that Blaise’s mental abnormalities predispose him to
commit sexually-violent crimes:
Especially when you put two conditions like this together, they
particularly affect somebody’s volitional and emotional capacity.
Paraphilia is like a hunger. It’s like something people are driven to
do. Now, people can have different levels of Paraphilia. There are
probably people in this country who are particularly sexually
attracted to adolescents, find them more attractive than any other
age group, but they never act on it. They don’t think it’s the right
thing to do. They’ve got an ability to control themselves, and
they’re just not going to go out there and hurt people.
So in those cases, you wouldn’t necessarily say that that had
affected their volitional control, because they do have good control.
But if the hunger is intense enough and the person’s controls are
weak enough, then you get a situation where it does impact their
volitional control. If they didn’t have that hunger, they wouldn’t be
out doing these things. The stronger the desire or the hunger, the
harder it is to resist, the more people start making excuses for what
they’re doing. Instead of admitting and facing up to and trying to
control what they’re doing.
....
[Blaise’s] mental abnormalities in this case are serious enough and
at a high enough level and strong enough that they do impact his
5
volitional and emotional control and they predispose him to commit
future sexual offenses.
Dr. Salter also discussed the risk assessment of Blaise.
Dr. Salter
employed three actuarial assessments in which Blaise scored in the highest-risk
category on two and in the moderate-risk category on the third. Dr. Salter noted
the treatment Blaise had been receiving had not been successful in lowering the
risk of another offense. Dr. Salter further noted Blaise did not have an adequate
relapse prevention plan, nor did he plan to change his way of living to avoid
sexually reoffending. Based upon all these factors, Dr. Salter opined that Blaise
was at a high risk to reoffend.
We determine Dr. Salter’s opinion provides
substantial evidence to show Blaise has a mental abnormality.
We reach this conclusion notwithstanding the testimony of defense expert,
Dr. Luis Rosell. Dr. Rosell disagreed with Dr. Salter that Blaise suffered from a
mental abnormality. Rather, he opined that Blaise had committed numerous sex
offenses because “his poor judgment came out, his anger, and it was just his
inappropriate manner of engaging with individuals, his impulsivity and his failure
to consider the consequences.” Dr. Rosell, however, did not conduct any tests
on Blaise.
The jury was free to afford less weight to this opinion than to
Dr. Salter’s testimony, and the court instructed the jury accordingly.
State v.
Shultz, 231 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Iowa 1975) (“The trier of fact is not obliged to
accept opinion evidence, even from experts, as conclusive. It may be accepted
in whole, in part, or not at all.”); In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478, 481 (Iowa Ct. App.
1995).
6
After having reviewed the record, we conclude the evidence was sufficient
to support the jury’s finding that Blaise has a mental abnormality. We find the
district court did not err in interpreting and applying chapter 229A. Consequently,
we affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
