WALTER GOLDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Walter Golden appeals the denial of his petition for discharge from involuntary civil commitment under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act. The trial court improperly rejected expert evidence by finding it stale and shifted the burden of proof to Golden, when the State bore the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that continued commitment was necessary.
The trial court applied an incorrect standard by finding expert evidence stale and lacking competent substantial evidence, thereby shifting the burden to Golden to prove his condition changed. The State bore the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that continued commitment was necessary, and the trial court improperly reconfigured the required legal findings.
[1] Under the Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act, the State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a committed person's mental cond…
[2] A trial court improperly shifts the burden of proof when it denies a petition for discharge from involuntary civil commitment based on a lack of evidence that the petitio…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the [S]tate bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the [committed] person's mental condition remains such that it is not safe for the person to be at large and that, if released, the person is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence.”
Establishes the statutory burden of proof that the State must meet to deny discharge from civil commitment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGolden was convicted in 1990 of sexual offenses against children and imprisoned. Upon release in 2001, he was transferred to civil commitment. In 2004…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standard Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
Walter Golden appeals the denial of his petition for discharge from involuntary civil commitment under the Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act (commonly known as the “Jimmy Ryce Act”), sections 394.910-.932, Florida Statutes (2016) (hereinafter “the Act”). Golden argues that the trial court qpplied an. incorrect stahdard of proof at tpial and, in so doing, improperly shifted the burden, of proof from the State to Golden. We agree and reverse.
In 1990, Golden was convicted of six counts of Sexual Battery On a Child by a Person in Familial or Custodial Authority and eight counts of Lewd/Lascivious Assault Upon a Child, and he was sentenced to prison. Upon his release from prison in 2001, Golden consented to sex offender treatment and was transferred to the Florida Civil Commitment Center (“FCCC”). He subsequently withdrew his consent, and in 2004, a jury determined that Golden was a sexually violent predator. He was then involuntarily committed to the FCCC for long-term control, care, and treatment.
Following an annual review hearing in 2014, the trial court, pursuant to section 394.918(3), Florida Statutes, found probable cause to believe that it was safe for Golden to be at large and that, if discharged, Golden would not engage in acts of sexual violence. Following that probable cause determination, the trial court properly set the matter for trial.
A non-jury trial took place on December 19, 2016. In such trials, “the [S]tate bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the [committed] person’s mental condition remains such that it is not safe for the person to be at large and that, if released, the person is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence.” § 394.918(4), Fla. Stat. (2016). In the instant case, the State submitted three expert reports, each concluding that Golden no longer met the criteria for involuntary civil commitment and recommending his release. At no point did any witness testify, nor did the State ever argue, that if released, Golden would be likely to engage in acts of sexual violence.
Following the trial, the court found that the reports and evaluations submitted by the State were stale as a matter of law and, thus, not competent substantial evidence. The court then “rejected the conclusions in the reports of the three experts that it is now safe for [Golden] to be at large” and entered its final order denying Golden’s motion for release from involuntary civil commitment.
In reaching this conclusion, the trial court found that there was no competent substantial evidence to support a finding *595that Golden’s condition had so changed that it would be safe for him to be at large. This not only improperly shifted the burden to Golden, it reconfigured the finding that the court must make in order to deny release from involuntary civil commitment.
We reverse the final judgment in this case and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.