Last Updated: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:53 PM CDT
Rhinelander man to stay in treatment facility as sexually violent person
by Heather Schaefer - Daily News Staff - hschaefer@rhinelanderdailynews.com
A former Rhinelander man convicted of sexually assaulting a young girl in a pool in 1998 will continue to be held in a treatment facility as a sexually violent person after the third circuit court of appeals in Wausau on Tuesday rejected his appeal.
In June of 2005 an Oneida County jury determined that Kenneth Roberts, 50, meets the definition of a sexually violent person as described in Chapter 980 of the state's criminal code.
In a Chapter 980 trial, the state tries to convince a jury that a person convicted of a certain offense should be kept in a secure treatment setting after their prison term is complete. To be held, a person must be found to suffer from a mental disorder and be found "likely" to reoffend.
Roberts served six years in prison for the pool assault and has also faced charges related to inappropriate sexual behavior in three other states.
In his appeal, Roberts claimed the judge presiding over his commitment trial erroneously allowed hearsay evidence to be considered by the jury. He also claimed his attorney did not properly represent him.
Specifically, Roberts objected to the testimony of his probation and parole officer and the state's two psychological experts on the grounds their comments about previous incidents and charges were either inaccurate or uncorroborated. He claimed his probation and parole agent incorrectly stated charges brought against him in the state of Michigan and claimed to have no knowledge that he has been accused of touching several thirteen to fifteen-year-old girls in public places in the state of Washington and stalking teenage girls in Oneida County.
Roberts also complained that the state's psychological expert did not accurately describe the incident in the pool for which he was convicted in 1998.
Roberts insists there is “a big difference in the feeling of horror that can be put into the minds of the members of the jury between the idea that the contact was for just a second barely coming into contact with the victim, and fiendishly groping the victim.”
In each instance the court ruled that Roberts either did not prove his argument or waived his right to challenge the so-called hearsay evidence by not objecting to it at trial.
The court also ruled Roberts cannot raise the issue of his attorney's effectiveness on appeal.
| Tell us what you think... |
| Comments » |
The
comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Rhinelander Daily News. |
|
| Post a comment
(150 word limit) » |
| We will not post reader comments containing
racial, religious or personal attacks, slander,
profanity, e-mail addresses, mailing addresses,
phone numbers or Web site addresses that are
for personal or promotional gain. |
|
|
| Thank you for your comments! Once your comments
are approved, they will appear on the site. |
|
|
|
|
feed
Comments
