IN RE THE DETENTION OF SCOTT ALLEN BENNETT SCOTT ALLEN BENNETT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 09 / 06–1745
Filed August 22, 2008
IN RE THE DETENTION OF SCOTT ALLEN BENNETT
SCOTT ALLEN BENNETT,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County,
Bruce B. Zager, Judge.
Respondent in a civil commitment proceeding appeals from civil
commitment after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Steven Addington,
Michael H. Adams, and Greta Truman, Assistant Public Defenders, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines and
Rebecca Goettsch, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
2
PER CURIAM.
After a jury found Scott Bennett to be a “sexually violent predator”
(SVP), as defined in Iowa Code section 229A.2(11) (2005), the district
court committed him to the custody of the department of human services
as required by section 229A.7(5).
claims of error.
Bennett appeals and raises several
On our review, we find the claims were either not
preserved or were rejected by other decisions of this court decided during
the pendency of this action. We affirm the decision of the district court.
Bennett first claims his rights to due process and equal protection
were violated by the provision in Iowa Code section 229A.7(4) that
entitled the attorney general to demand a jury trial. Our recent opinion
in In re Detention of Hennings, 744 N.W.2d 333 (Iowa 2008), squarely
addressed and rejected similar arguments.
For the reasons stated in
that opinion, the statutory right of the attorney general to demand a jury
trial does not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of
our Federal and state Constitutions.
Next, Bennett asserts three legal errors: insufficiency of the
evidence, admission of irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence, and
erroneous jury instructions. Bennett’s arguments supporting these three
errors are premised on his claim that chapter 229A requires a present
likelihood of reoffense at the time of the proposed commitment.
We
rejected such an interpretation in In re Detention of Pierce, 748 N.W.2d
509 (Iowa 2008). Pierce is dispositive of Bennett’s claims of legal error.
For the reasons stated in that opinion, we conclude the district court did
not commit the legal errors asserted by Bennett.
We conclude Iowa Code section 229A.7(4) does not violate
Bennett’s rights to due process and equal protection, and the district
court did not err in interpreting and applying chapter 229A. Bennett has
3
failed to preserve the other issues he raises on appeal.
See Meier v.
Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (holding issues must be
raised and decided in district court before we will consider them on
appeal). We affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
All justices concur except Baker, J., who takes no part.
This is not a published opinion.
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.
