In re Detention of David Anthony Yingling ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 23-1474
    Filed November 13, 2024
    IN RE DETENTION OF DAVID ANTHONY YINGLING,
    DAVID ANTHONY YINGLING,
    Respondent-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark Fowler, Judge.
    Respondent appeals his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator.
    AFFIRMED.
    Trevor J. Andersen, Assistant Public Defender, Des Moines, for appellant.
    Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
    General, for appellee.
    Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
    2
    SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.
    David Yingling appeals his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator
    under Iowa Code chapter 229A (Supp. 2023). Yingling challenges the sufficiency
    of the evidence produced by the State to show he “suffers from a mental
    abnormality” making him “likely to engage in predatory acts constituting sexually
    violent offenses if he is not confined to a secure facility.” We determine sufficient
    evidence supports the civil commitment and affirm.
    I.     Background Facts and Proceedings
    In 2011, Yingling was convicted of two counts of lascivious acts with a minor
    which occurred in 2004. These offenses involved Yingling’s then girlfriend’s nine-
    year-old daughter. Yingling was incarcerated until 2020. During his incarceration,
    Yingling completed sex offender treatment. He was diagnosed with pedophilic
    disorder.
    Less than a year after his release, he was arrested and subsequently pled
    guilty to indecent exposure after he exposed his genitals in a convenience store.1
    Yingling was sentenced to 300 days in jail, to be served concurrent with two years
    for a special sentence revocation, first offense. Yingling was ordered to complete
    sex offender treatment again. He began treatment but was suspended based on
    lack of participation. Yingling was later permitted to resume participation and
    achieved “maximum benefits.” But given his minimal participation and lack of
    accountability, he was to re-enroll in treatment if not civilly committed.
    1 Yingling denied the legitimacy of this conviction. He stated that he only pled guilty
    to complete the required treatment program.
    3
    Yingling was scheduled to discharge his sentence in February 2023. As a
    result of Yingling’s convictions and his predisposition to commit sexually violent
    offenses, the State petitioned to have Yingling civilly committed as a sexually
    violent predator under Iowa Code chapter 229A. Trial took place in July 2023. The
    district court heard testimony from Yingling, the State’s expert, Dr. David Thornton,
    and Yingling’s expert, Dr. Luis Rosell. Both psychologists agreed that Yingling fit
    the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder. But they disagreed on whether there
    was a greater chance than not that Yingling would commit another sexually violent
    offense if released. The district court determined that Yingling met the criteria of
    a sexually violent predator under Iowa Code section 229A.2. Yingling appeals.
    II.    Standard of Review
    We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for corrections of
    errors at law. In re Det. of Barnes, 
    689 N.W.2d 455
    , 457 (Iowa 2004). We will
    uphold the court’s decision if substantial evidence exists “upon which a rational
    trier of fact could find the respondent to be a sexually violent predator beyond a
    reasonable doubt.” In re Det. of Betsworth, 
    711 N.W.2d 280
    , 286 (Iowa 2006). “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 Det. of Swanson, 
    668 N.W.2d 570
    , 574 (Iowa 2003) (cleaned
    up).
    III.   Analysis
    Iowa Code section 229A.2(15) defines a “sexually violent predator” as “a
    person who has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense and
    4
    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 State must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. See
    Iowa Code § 229A.7(5)(a).
    Yingling concedes he has been convicted of a sexually violent offense. But
    he argues the State did not establish that he suffers from a mental abnormality. A
    “mental abnormality” is “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. § 229A.2(8). Yingling argues Dr. Thornton’s diagnosis of
    compulsive sexual behavior disorder should be disregarded as it is not contained
    in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5) approved by
    the American Psychiatric Association. Yingling highlights Dr. Rosell’s testimony
    that he was “not familiar” with a case in which compulsive sexual behavior disorder
    was alleged to be a mental abnormality.
    But Dr. Thornton also diagnosed Yingling with pedophilic disorder, which
    “predisposes him to acts of sexual violence to a degree which would constitute a
    menace to the health and safety of others.” Indeed, in the conclusion portion of
    his report, Dr. Thornton relied on the diagnosis of pedophilic disorder, not another
    diagnosis. “This diagnosis alone was enough to satisfy the qualification of a mental
    abnormality.” In re Det. of Howard, No. 22-0855, 
    2023 WL 4755541
    , at *2 (Iowa
    Ct. App. July 26, 2023) (finding diagnosis of pedophilic disorder “constituted more
    than enough evidence to fit this definition of a mental abnormality”); accord In re
    Det. of Darling, 
    712 N.W.2d 98
    , 100 (Iowa 2006) (collecting cases and ruling,
    5
    “Darling’s mental abnormality—pedophilia—is a proper foundation for his
    commitment under chapter 229A”).           We also observe Dr. Thornton opined
    Yingling’s form of pedophilic disorder is “nonexclusive, which means that he’s also
    attracted to adults.” Dr. Thornton testified Yingling’s sexual urges “went on long
    enough that I still see this disorder as applicable to him.” See In re Det. of Pierce,
    
    748 N.W.2d 509
    , 512–13 (Iowa 2008) (noting mental abnormality is inextricably
    linked to recidivism, as the condition must make it more likely than not that the
    individual will engage in sexually violent acts in future).
    And we further highlight that this court has previously rejected Yingling’s
    argument that his diagnosis could not be the basis for a mental abnormality as
    such was not contained in the DSM-5. See In re Det. of Barr, No. 21-1305, 
    2022 WL 10861330
    , at *4–5 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2022) (citing Betsworth and Barnes
    as the basis for rejecting this argument); see also In re Det. of Roe, No. 12-1367,
    
    2013 WL 5229760
    , at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2013) (affirming based on a
    diagnosis not in the DSM).
    Yingling also claims the State did not sufficiently establish that he was more
    likely than not to reoffend with a sexually violent offense. He relies on Dr. Rosell’s
    opinion that although Yingling scored overall in the “above average range for
    sexual recidivism,” Yingling had “processed his offending history and addressed
    factors that contributed to his past conduct.” Dr. Rosell emphasized that Yingling
    had not reoffended toward children, which was his “most concerning conduct.” As
    Dr. Rosell testified:
    I think he’s not more likely than not to re-offend based on the fact
    that as far as we know he has one hands-on child victim from over
    two decades ago. So the likelihood that he would engage in another
    6
    hands-on offense against a young child, I believe, is very low given
    he stopped doing that a long time ago.
    In contrast, Dr. Thornton observed Yingling had completed sex offender
    treatment in prison, reoffended, and participated in treatment again in prison but
    was suspended because he “had difficulty with taking responsibility for the
    offenses” he committed.2 At trial, Yingling downplayed his offenses. As the court
    observed:
    Yingling still rationalizes the offenses, even to the point of stating that
    there was only two instances and then admitting to four. He was
    released on his own and committed a criminal act in the indecent
    exposure to which he is now saying didn’t really happen and that he
    only pled guilty to get the matter over with.
    Dr. Thornton opined Yingling had a risk of greater than fifty percent of
    committing another sexually violent offense if not confined to a secure facility.
    Although Yingling had an expected twenty-year sexual risk for detected sexual
    recidivism of 47%, when “any reasonable allowance for undetected [sexual]
    offending” was included, Yingling’s final risk estimate exceeded 50%. And the
    statute requires that we look at lifetime risk of re-offense, not just a twenty-year
    window. Dr. Thornton’s report specified that four-fifths of recidivism is detected
    while one-fifth goes undetected as a conservative assumption. Dr. Thornton’s
    report added that one could easily argue for a much larger gap between observed
    and detected sexual recidivism, pointing to a study that suggested around half of
    2 We observe Yingling completed the required treatment in his initial incarceration.
    By the time he was released, the statistical instruments would suggest Yingling
    was at less risk of recidivism because of his age. Yet he still reoffended despite
    these rehabilitative factors. In re Det. of Willis, 
    691 N.W. 726
    , 729 (Iowa 2005)
    (“The absence of sexually predatory acts in a setting of secure confinement does
    not paint the same picture as the absence of such acts in a normal life situation.”).
    7
    sexual recidivism goes undetected. And Yingling’s own testimony suggested other
    “deviant interests” went undetected, which he described as “off-chance sexual
    incident[s].”
    While Dr. Rosell provided an opinion contradicting Dr. Thornton’s, “a
    different opinion does not necessitate a different outcome.”          Howard, 
    2023 WL 4755541
    , at *2.         We defer to the district court’s determination that
    Dr. Thornton’s testimony was “convincing.” See In re Det. of Stone, No. 23-0347,
    
    2024 WL 3291495
    , at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. July 3, 2024) (“Because the court is in a
    better position to weigh the credibility of the witnesses than we are, we readily
    defer to the district court’s judgment when there is a battle of experts.” (cleaned
    up)); accord State v. Fetters, 
    562 N.W.2d 770
    , 775 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (“When
    the psychiatric testimony is conflicting, the reviewing court will ‘not determine anew
    the weight to be given trial testimony.’” (citation omitted)).
    The district court also had the opportunity to observe Yingling and evaluate
    his testimony, which it determined was not credible:
    One issue that is hard to dismiss is Mr. Yingling’s dishonesty.
    He told Dr. Thornton that he had had about 400 sexual partners in
    his life and later claimed the true number was closer to 250 to 300.
    Mr. Yingling has given different accounts of his sexual orientation.
    He told a therapist that he had been seeking depictions of
    homosexual pornography but later said that he made that up. There
    is credible indication that he only admitted to a therapist of his past
    sexual crimes so that he could move forward in the program.
    Mr. Yingling still rationalizes the offenses that he predicated.
    He described one incident as an accident. He has described his
    victim as playing along and being flirtatious towards him prior to his
    crimes.
    It is not our role on appeal to parse out the testimonies; instead, the trial
    court was in the best position to assess credibility. See Barr, 
    2022 WL 10861330
    ,
    8
    at *5. Given our role on appeal, we conclude substantial evidence in the record
    supports the district court’s finding that Yingling was more likely than not to
    reoffend if released. We affirm the order of the district court which determined that
    Yingling was a sexually violent predator under Iowa Code section 229A.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-1474

Filed Date: 11/13/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2024