Opinion
No. 2-456 / 01-1220
Filed September 11, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Alan L. Pearson, Judge
Respondent appeals from a jury's finding he is a sexually violent predator under Iowa Code chapter 229A (1999). AFFIRMED.
Mark Smith, First Assistant State Public Defender, and Greg Bal, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Andrew Prosser and Roxann Ryan, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Calvin Matlock has three convictions for sexually violent offenses. Prior to his release from prison on the third charge, the State filed a petition to commit him under Iowa Code Chapter 229A. At trial, the State's expert witness testified regarding Matlock's mental disorders. The jury found Matlock to be a sexually violent predator and he was committed for treatment. Matlock appeals, arguing the court's refusal of a proposed jury instruction violated his right to due process.
At trial, Matlock proposed jury instructions that defined a sexually violent predator as a person suffering "from a mental abnormality that impairs his volitional control to the degree he cannot control his behavior." He proposed similar language be used in the instruction defining mental abnormality. Prior to submitting the case to the jury, the proposed jury instructions were provided to the parties. Matlock's counsel stated, "We accept the current version of the instructions." Matlock now argues the district court erred in not requiring the jury to find he had "serious difficulty in controlling behavior," pursuant to Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, ___, 122 S.Ct. 867, 870, 151 L.Ed.2d 856, 862 (2002).
We find Matlock's claim is not properly before us. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.924 states:
Before jury arguments, the court shall give to each counsel a copy of its instructions in their final form, noting this fact of record and granting reasonable time for counsel to make objections, which shall be made and ruled on before arguments to the jury. Within such time, all objections to giving or failing to give any instruction must be made in writing or dictated into the record, out of the jury's presence, specifying the matter objected to and on what grounds. No other grounds or objections shall be asserted thereafter, or considered on appeal.
Matlock did not make any objection to the jury instructions on the record. Therefore, we do not consider any alleged error. See State v. Taggart, 430 N.W.2d 423, 425 (Iowa 1988).
AFFIRMED.