Matter of E.W.F.
, 2008 ND 130,
Civil commitments of sexually dangerous individuals are reviewed under a modified clearly erroneous standard and will be affirmed unless the district court's order is induced by an erroneous view of the law, or we are firmly convinced the order is
not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
In addition to the three requirements contained in the plain language of the statute governing sexually dangerous individual commitments, substantive due process rights require the individual facing commitment must be shown to have serious difficulty
controlling his behavior.
In a civil proceeding, a party's failure to offer evidence refuting or otherwise explaining the opposing party's witness testimony warrants the inference that the opposing party's witness's statements were true and correct.
Matter of Barrera
, 2008 ND 25,
744 N.W.2d 744
Involuntary civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person is reviewed under a modified clearly erroneous standard of review.
Under the statute for committing a sexually dangerous person, proof of a nexus between the requisite disorder and dangerousness encompasses proof that the disorder involves serious difficulty in controlling behavior and suffices to distinguish a
dangerous sexual offender whose disorder subjects him to civil commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist in a criminal case.
Interest of P.F.
, 2008 ND 37,
744 N.W.2d 724
The court must decide whether an individual who is committed because he is sexually dangerous may be discharged.
The equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions do not prohibit legislative classifications or require identical treatment of different groups of people.
Matter of Hehn
, 2008 ND 36,
745 N.W.2d 631
In a civil commitment of a sexually dangerous individual, the fact that actuarial test scores do not give rise to scores showing a high re-offending risk does not preclude the fact-finder from coming to an alternative conclusion.
The importance of independent judicial decision-making means the court, rather than the test scores or the psychologists who create them, is the ultimate decision-maker as to whether the State has met its burden of clear and convincing evidence to
sustain a civil commitment for a sexually dangerous individual.
Matter of Midgett
, 2007 ND 198,
742 N.W.2d 803
The Sixth Amendment does not apply to a civil commitment proceeding for a sexually dangerous individual.
In a civil commitment proceeding for a sexually dangerous individual, evidence of prior sexually predatory conduct or criminal conduct, including a record of the juvenile court, is admissible.
Matter of Anderson
, 2007 ND 50,
730 N.W.2d 570
The district court may extend for good cause the 60-day period within which a commitment hearing must be held.
For the civil commitment proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3, the legislature specifically excluded the right to a jury trial.
Involuntary civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person is reviewed under a modified clearly erroneous standard of review.
Sexually predatory conduct includes the act of compelling another to submit to sexual contact by force. It also includes sexual contact with a minor when the actor is an adult.
A person need not be diagnosed with a sexual disorder. The actor need only have a congenital or acquired condition that is manifested by a personality disorder or other mental disorder or dysfunction.
Under the statute for committing a sexually dangerous person, proof of a nexus between the requisite disorder and dangerousness encompasses proof that the disorder involves serious difficulty in controlling behavior and suffices to distinguish a
dangerous sexual offender whose disorder subjects him to civil commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist in a criminal case.
Interest of J.M.
, 2006 ND 96,
713 N.W.2d 518
In a proceeding for commitment as a sexually dangerous person, the evidence must clearly show a respondent's disorder is likely to manifest itself in a serious difficulty in controlling sexually predatory behavior.
A commitment hearing must be held within sixty days of the finding of probable cause, but the district court may grant an extension if good cause is shown.
A trial court's failure to make a finding of good cause to extend the time for holding a commitment hearing within sixty days of the finding of probable cause does not require a subsequent order for commitment be vacated.
Scheduling constraints alone do not automatically establish "good cause" for extending time before the hearing.
Interest of P.F.
, 2006 ND 82,
712 N.W.2d 610
A preliminary hearing must be held within seventy-two hours of the filing of a petition for commitment of a sexually dangerous individual. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that individual is
sexually dangerous.
Expert testimony is not required at the preliminary hearing.
A commitment hearing must be held within sixty days of the finding of probable cause, but the district court may grant an extension if good cause is shown.
Scheduling constraints alone do not automatically establish "good cause" for extending time before the hearing.
In determining whether a person is "sexually dangerous," the State's experts may rely on all sexual predatory conduct, not just that conduct that resulted in a successful conviction on a sexual offense.
Matter of G.R.H.
, 2006 ND 56,
711 N.W.2d 587
Involuntary civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person is reviewed under modified clearly erroneous standard of review.
Under statute for committing sexually dangerous person, proof of nexus between the requisite disorder and dangerousness encompasses proof that the disorder involves serious difficulty in controlling behavior and suffices to distinguish a dangerous
sexual offender whose disorder subjects him to civil commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist in a criminal case.
The executive director of the Department of Human Services may decide the least restrictive available treatment for a sexually dangerous individual, and that procedure does not violate due process or double jeopardy.
Interest of B.V.
, 2006 ND 22,
708 N.W.2d 877
An order committing a sexually dangerous individual will be affirmed unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law or it is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
In a commitment proceeding, an indigent respondent entitled to appointment of an independent examiner does not have the right to choose a specific examiner.
When the commitment proceeding is not held within the statutorily required sixty days, the case will not be dismissed if the delay was caused by the respondent's actions.
A competent party in a civil commitment proceeding who wishes to represent himself cannot be coerced into accepting appointed counsel where there is a clear request for self-representation.
Interest of L.D.M.
, 2005 ND 177,
704 N.W.2d 838
The requirement that two experts conclude statutory conditions have been met to civilly commit a person as a dangerous sexual individual can be met by testimony of two experts employed by the same employer who have conferred during the evaluation
process, providing each arrives at a separately held conclusion.
In considering the totality of the evidence, the court can rely on the expert opinion of witnesses called by the State and by the defendant in deciding whether the statutory conditions are met for civil commitment, under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3, of a
person as a dangerous sexual individual.
Interest of D.V.A.
, 2004 ND 57,
676 N.W.2d 776
Experts in proceedings to commit sexually dangerous individuals may rely upon information reasonably relied upon by other experts in the particular field when forming opinions regarding whether an individual is sexually dangerous.
Information relied upon by experts in commitment proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3 need not be admissible in evidence.
N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3 does not require the State to establish a respondent is not mentally retarded.
Grosinger v. M.B.K.
, 2002 ND 25,
639 N.W.2d 473
The phrase "likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct," used for commitment of sexually dangerous persons, means the person's propensity towards sexual violence is of such a degree as to pose a threat to others.
Grosinger v. M.D.
, 1999 ND 160,
598 N.W.2d 799
Under the Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individuals Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3, the court may for good cause extend the time within which a commitment hearing must be held, and the motion for extension may be made after the original 30-day period
has expired.
Dismissal of commitment proceedings is not required when there has been improper public disclosure of proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3.
The Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individuals Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3, does not create a criminal penalty and does not violate double jeopardy.
A finding of fact in a proceeding under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3 will be overturned on appeal only if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law or if the appellate court is firmly convinced the finding is not supported by clear and convincing
evidence.