IN RE THE DETENTION OF RAYMOND NEAL REINLASODER, RAYMOND NEAL REINLASODER, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-818 / 06-0932
Filed December 28, 2007
IN RE THE DETENTION OF
RAYMOND NEAL REINLASODER,
RAYMOND NEAL REINLASODER,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Alan L. Pearson,
Judge.
Respondent appeals from a jury determination that he was a sexually
violent predator. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Matthew S. Sheeley,
Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Robert Glaser and Linda Hines,
Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan, J., and Robinson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2007).
2
ROBINSON, S.J.
I.
Background Facts & Proceedings
Raymond Reinlasoder was convicted of contributing to the sexual
delinquency of a minor in 1982 when he performed oral sex on his fourteen-yearold step-daughter.
In 1996, he was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual
assault for performing oral sex on two girls, ages nine and ten. In 2004, he was
convicted of indecent contact with a child, after he placed his hand over the
crotch of an eleven-year-old girl. Reinlasoder was fifty-six years old at the time
of the most recent incident.
Dr.
Raymond
Quackenbush,
a
psychologist,
assessed
whether
Reinlasoder met the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent predator under
Iowa Code chapter 229A (2005). Dr. Quackenbush diagnosed Reinlasoder with
pedophilia, paraphilia (not otherwise specified), and a personality disorder. Dr.
Quackenbush applied the Rapid Risk Assessment of Sex Offender Recidivism
(RRASOR), the Static-99, and the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool,
Revised (MnSOST-R). He also performed a clinical interview. Dr. Quackenbush
gave the opinion Reinlasoder was likely to commit future acts of a sexually
violent nature.
The State filed a petition seeking to have Reinlasoder committed as a
sexually violent predator. During the trial, Dr. Quackenbush testified:
In my opinion based on the actuarial risk assessments,
based also on my clinical interview and his history, I think that he is
very likely to commit future acts of sexual violence. He has in the
past, over a 22-year period, sexually molested children. He most
recently offended three years ago so it’s not – it’s not behavior that
is far in his past, and he has been incarcerated during that period,
3
say, as he had access to children. He has had some sex offender
treatment and this did not stop him from continuing his behavior.
He continued with it after he had the treatment. In my opinion, he is
very likely to continue this behavior.
The defense presented the testimony of Dr. Richard Wollert, who testified
Reinlasoder was not likely to reoffend during the next five years. A jury found
Reinlasoder was a sexually violent predator. He now appeals.
II.
Standard of Review
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for the correction
of errors of law. In re Detention of Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 286 (Iowa 2006).
We are bound by the findings in the district court if the findings are supported by
substantial evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could find the respondent
is a sexually violent predator beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Detention of
Swanson, 668 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Iowa 2003).
III.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
A.
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, if not confined in
a secure facility.”
The phrase “likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual
violence” means a person “more likely than not will engage in acts of a sexually
violent nature.” Iowa Code § 229A.2(4).
Reinlasoder contends there is not sufficient evidence in the record to show
he is more likely than not to reoffend. Dr. Quackenbush testified he used guided
clinical judgment, which was a clinical interview plus consideration of actuarial
4
instruments, to reach the conclusion Reinlasoder was very likely to reoffend. On
cross-examination, Dr. Quackenbush testified:
Q. And when I asked you how reliable guided clinical
judgment was you testified that you would assume that guided
clinical judgment was better than chance. Do you recall giving that
testimony? A. Well, yes. Unaided clinical judgment has been
shown to be slightly better than chance, and adding actuarials to
that has been shown to be even better.
Reinlasoder asserts Dr. Quackenbush’s opinion is not entitled to any weight
because his method of assessment was only “slightly better than chance.”
Contrary to Reinlasoder’s assertion, Dr. Quackenbush did not state his
method was only “slightly better than chance.”
He stated unaided clinical
judgment alone was slightly better than chance, and by adding actuarial
instruments, his assessment was even better. Dr. Quackenbush also stated that
his method was the best method available. We determine Dr. Quackenbush’s
opinion provides substantial evidence to show Reinlasoder was more likely than
not to reoffend.
B.
Reinlasoder also contends the State did not present sufficient
evidence to show he was likely to engage in sexually violent predatory acts at the
time of commitment. Reinlasoder relies on this statement:
The language of chapter 229A clearly indicates by its use of
the present tense that an individual must be both dangerous and
possess a mental abnormality that makes the individual likely to
engage in sexually violent predatory acts at the time of
commitment.
In re Detention of Selby, 710 N.W.2d 249, 253 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005). He asserts
the State was required to show he was likely to reoffend at the time of
commitment.
5
In Selby, the respondent complained that his lifetime risk to reoffend
should not be presented at trial, and the court of appeals specifically stated it
would not address that issue. Selby, 710 N.W.2d at 253-54. We conclude Selby
does not support Reinlasoder’s claim the State is required to present evidence
he was likely to reoffend at the time of commitment.
The Iowa Supreme Court has stated that section 229A.2(4) does not
include a time frame as to when future acts of a sexually violent nature should be
expected to occur. In re Detention of Ewoldt, 634 N.W.2d 622, 624 (Iowa 2001).
The court stated, “we are convinced that the legislature did not intend to impose
a burden upon the State to prove that alleged sexual predators are expected to
reoffend within a specific time period, particularly a relatively short, one-year time
period.” Id. We conclude the State was not required to show Reinlasoder was
more likely than not to engage in acts of a sexually violent nature at the time of
commitment. The State sufficiently showed Reinlasoder was likely to engage in
such acts in the future.
We affirm the determination Reinlasoder was a sexually violent predator.
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.
