Matter of Voisine - No. 20120325
Raymond Voisine appeals the order continuing his civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual.
In 2004, Voisine pled guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition for having sexual contact with his minor grandson. On his release, the State petitioned to civilly commit Voisine as a sexually dangerous individual. The district court committed Voisine, and he appealed. The Suprmee Court held an consenual incestuous relationship between Voisine and one or more of his adult daughters could not be the basis for sexually predatory conduct under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(8). Matter of Voisine, 2010 ND 17, ¶ 12, 777 N.W.2d 908. The Suprmee Court held that Voisine's 2006 conviction of gross sexual imposition against a six- or seven-year old male could satisfy the first prong under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(8), however, the district court failed to make a specific finding. Therefore, case was reversed the order and sent back for further proceedings. In 2010, Voisine petitione for discharge was denied. Voisine appealed and the case was summarily affirmed. See Matter of Voisine, 2010 ND 241, 795 N.W.2d 38.
At a 2011 discharge hearing, both parties agreed Voisine had previously engaged in sexually predatory conduct by engaging in sexual relations with his minor grandson. However, the expert witnesses disagreed as to whether Voisine suffers from a mental, sexual, or personality disorder; poses a serious risk to others; and has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The district court found that Voisine continued to be a sexually dangerous individual and ordered that he continue to be civilly committed.
On appeal, Voisine argues the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) he suffers from a congenital or acquired condition that is manifested by a sexual, mental, or personality disorder; (2) he is likely to further engage in sexually predatory conduct; and (3) he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior.