In re the Detention of Fields

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0689
Filed April 15, 2026
_______________

In re the Detention of Lonnie Duane Fields,

Lonnie Duane Fields,
Respondent–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County,
The Honorable Terry Rickers, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Matthew C. Moore, Assistant State Public Defender, attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, Anagha Dixit (until withdrawal), and
Nicholas E. Siefert, Assistant Attorneys General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
Opinion by Chicchelly, J.

1
CHICCHELLY, Judge.

Lonnie Duane Fields appeals his civil commitment as a sexually
violent predator. He argues there is insufficient evidence to support civil
commitment. Upon our review, we find there is substantial evidence and
affirm the district court’s determination that Fields is a sexually violent
predator.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In October 2024, the State petitioned to involuntarily commit Fields
as a sexually violent predator under Iowa Code chapter 229A (2024). In its
petition, the State alleged six sexually violent offenses under Iowa Code
section 229A.2(14)(a). These offenses were:
 An October 1, 1997 conviction for indecent exposure in violation of
Iowa Code section 709.9.
 A June 5, 1997 conviction for indecent contact with a child in
violation of section 709.12.
 A July 23, 1997 conviction for indecent exposure in violation of
Iowa Code section 709.9.
 A July 23, 1997 conviction for indecent exposure in violation of
Iowa Code section 709.9
 A July 31, 2020 conviction for indecent exposure in violation of
section 709.9.
 A November 30, 2020 conviction for indecent exposure in
violation of Iowa Code section 709.9.
The case proceeded to a bench trial. When the trial commenced,
Fields was fifty-nine years old and turned sixty a few weeks later. At trial,
Fields was called as a witness by the State. During his testimony, Fields
admitted to being convicted of sexually violent offenses. He admitted to
masturbating in sight of children, neighbors, and strangers in public. Fields
estimated he had masturbated in sight of twenty to fifty victims in his lifetime.
Many of these instances were undetected sexual offending that Fields had

2
never been charged with or convicted of. Fields also admitted that his most
recent attempt at community supervision had, in part, ended because he had
used methamphetamine and indecently exposed himself.

The State also presented the testimony of Dr. David Thornton.
Dr. Thornton evaluated Fields and reviewed Fields’s records from the State
and Iowa Department of Corrections. He diagnosed Fields with
exhibitionistic disorder and stimulant use disorder. And Dr. Thornton
testified these disorders predisposed Fields to future acts of sexual violence.
Based on a variety of risk assessment tools, Dr. Thornton testified that Fields
posed an above-average risk of recidivism.

To rebut that testimony, Fields presented Dr. Luis Rossell. Dr. Rossell
did not dispute the diagnoses of exhibitionistic disorder and stimulant use
disorder. But he testified that these disorders do not qualify as a mental
abnormality for the purposes of the sexually violent predator statute and did
not make Fields a likely recidivist. However, on cross-examination,
Dr. Rossell admitted portions of his report were inaccurate as they were
evaluations of a different individual.

Ultimately, the district court concluded the State had proven Fields is
a sexually violent predator beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court
committed Fields to the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services for
treatment until his mental abnormality no longer makes him a danger to
himself and the community at-large. Fields now appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is reviewed for correction of errors
at law. In re Det. of Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 286 (Iowa 2006). “If there is
substantial evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could find the

3
respondent to be a sexually violent predator beyond a reasonable doubt, we
are bound by the [trier of fact]’s finding.” Id. We view the evidence most
favorably to the State, drawing all legitimate inferences and presumptions
accordingly; nevertheless, “[e]vidence is not substantial if it raises only
suspicion, speculation, or conjecture.” Id. at 287 (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION
To succeed on a petition to have a person committed pursuant to
chapter 229A, the State must prove, “beyond a reasonable doubt, the
respondent is a sexually violent predator.” Iowa Code § 229A.7(5)(a); accord
In re Det. of Pierce, 748 N.W.2d 509, 512 (Iowa 2008). A sexually violent
predator is “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.” Iowa Code § 229A.2(15). Thus,
three elements must be satisfied: (1) a qualifying charge or conviction, (2) the
presence of a mental abnormality, and (3) a nexus between the mental
abnormality and a likelihood of committing future sexually violent offenses.
See Pierce, 748 N.W.2d at 513. Fields does not challenge the first and second
element, so we confine our review to the third.

Fields’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred in
finding he was more likely than not to engage in future acts of sexual violence
if he is not confined to a secure facility. He argues the district court erred in
using Field’s risk assessment at the age of fifty-nine instead of sixty because
his risk of recidivism would decrease at sixty. At the time of trial, Fields was
four weeks away from his sixtieth birthday. Upon our review, we find
substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that Fields is more
likely than not to engage in future acts of sexual violence.

4
Fields points us to testimony of Dr. Rossell that Fields would drop
from above-average risk to average risk at the age of sixty1 when using the
Static-99R risk assessment tool. But the Static-99R is only a risk assessment
tool. It is the factfinder’s duty to determine whether an accused is more likely
than not to engage in acts of a sexually violent manner. In re Det. of Barr, No.
21-1305, 2022 WL 10861330, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2022).

On the other hand, Dr. Thornton’s evaluation and the district court’s
order discuss the risk assessment at the time of trial. Dr. Thornton
determined Fields is more likely than not to commit another sexually violent
offense if released. And Dr. Thornton addressed Field’s impending sixtieth
birthday. When asked how that would impact his risk assessment,
Dr. Thornton testified:
Where that gets me is that his risk estimate with the Static-99R
would come down clearly below the more likely than not threshold, but on
the other two instruments, the Static-2002R and the Risk Matrix 2000, it
would still be above the more likely than not threshold.

So two out of the three instruments would be saying, Yes, he meets
more likely than not. One of them would be assigning him less risk.

He also opined that there remained a greater than not chance that
Fields would commit another sexually violent offense. The testimony of a
doctor that there is a likelihood a respondent will sexually reoffend is
sufficient to distinguish that respondent from a typical recidivist. In re Det.
of Altman, 723 N.W.2d 181, 185–86 (Iowa 2006). We also share the district
court’s concerns regarding the mistakes found in Dr. Rossell’s reports
“insofar as the Court has to weigh the consistency and credibility of the

1
It is worth noting that Dr. Rossell also determined Fields posed an-
above average risk at the time of trial.

5
expert witness’s opinions and conclusions.” And in any event, we defer to
the district court’s judgment when there is a battle of the experts. In re Det.
of Welsh, No. 20-1282, 2022 WL 108576, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2022);
accord State v. Fetters, 562 N.W.2d 770, 775 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (“When the
psychiatric testimony is conflicting, the reviewing court will ʻnot determine
anew the weight to be given trial testimony.’” (citation omitted)). So, we find
there is substantial evidence supporting the third element.

CONCLUSION
Because we find there is substantial evidence that Fields is a sexually
violent predator who is more likely than not to engage in sexually violent
offenses if not confined to a secure facility, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

6