Interest of Hoff
Docket Info
- Title
- In the Interest of Robert R. Hoff
-----------------------------
Pamela A. Nesvig,
Assistant State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee
v
Robert R. Hoff, Respondent and Appellant - Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : CIVIL COMMIT OF SEXUAL PREDATOR
- Appeal From
-
Case No. 05-R-00363
South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Bruce A. Romanick
Highlight
A district court's decision whether to require an individual to be restrained during a civil commitment proceeding is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
An individualized determination that restraints are necessary must be made after an individual requests that the restraints be removed. Restraints should not exceed what the particular situation requires.
The determination whether restraints are necessary requires an individualized determination on the record of the individual's record, temperament, and desperateness of his situation; the security situation at the courtroom and courthouse; the individual's physical condition; and whether there was an adequate means of providing security that was less prejudicial.
A district court abuses its discretion when it fails to make an independent assessment whether to require an individual to remain restrained during a civil commitment hearing.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
Seq. # | Filing Date | Description | Attachment |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 05/24/2012 | NOTICE OF APPEAL : 05/23/2012 | |
2 | 05/24/2012 | ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 05/23/2012 | |
3 | 05/29/2012 | Admission of Service of OTR from Lisa Soma | |
4 | 06/22/2012 | ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 06/21/2012 (ENTRY NOS.1-7, 9-22, 26-66, 68-141) | |
5 | 07/06/2012 | TRANSCRIPT DATED March 26, 2012 & C.O.S. | |
6 | 07/06/2012 | DISK - tra (3/26/12) (e-mailed) | |
7 | 08/15/2012 | MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (e-mail letter) | |
8 | 08/15/2012 | E-FILED MOTION | |
9 | 08/15/2012 | ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 08/24/2102 | |
10 | 08/24/2012 | APPELLANT BRIEF | View |
11 | 08/24/2012 | E-FILED BRIEF | |
12 | 08/24/2012 | APPELLANT APPENDIX | |
13 | 08/24/2012 | E-FILED APPENDIX | |
14 | 08/30/2012 | Received $25 e-filing surcharge for ATB (Receipt #21479) | |
15 | 09/04/2012 | Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating | |
16 | 09/04/2012 | Received 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating | |
17 | 09/26/2012 | APPELLEE BRIEF | View |
18 | 09/26/2012 | DISK-AEB (e-mailed) | |
19 | 09/27/2012 | REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT | |
20 | 09/27/2012 | E-FILED MOTION | |
21 | 09/27/2012 | REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLEE | |
22 | 09/27/2012 | E-FILED MOTION | |
23 | 10/18/2012 | NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT | |
24 | 11/01/2012 | ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Request to waive oral argument by Appellant) - Granted | |
25 | 11/01/2012 | ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Request to waive oral argument by Appellee) - Granted | |
26 | 11/07/2012 | APPEARANCES: Waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(f) | |
27 | 11/07/2012 | ARGUED: Waived | |
28 | 05/14/2013 | DISPOSITION | |
29 | 05/14/2013 | SPLIT OPINION : Kapsner, Carol Ronning | View |
30 | 05/14/2013 | Concur in the result : VandeWalle, Gerald W. | |
31 | 05/14/2013 | DISSENT : Sandstrom, Dale V. | |
32 | 05/16/2013 | Judgment Sent to Parties | |
33 | 06/12/2013 | MANDATE | |
34 | 09/26/2013 | RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE | |
35 | 10/27/2021 | EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed |