Matter of Didier
- In the Matter of Lawrence Didier
Frederick Fremgen, Stutsman County State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee
Lawrence Didier, Respondent and Appellant
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : CIVIL COMMIT OF SEXUAL PREDATOR
- Appeal From
Case No. 2010-MH-00113
Southeast Judicial District, Stutsman County
Cherie LaVonne Clark
Parties' Statement of Issues
Whether Didier was given a fair hearing comporting with due process including reasonable notice or opportunity of the claims of opposing party and the opportunity to rebut the claims.
Whether the District Court's Order's factual basis regarding Didier's behavior is sufficient to legally conclude Didier has an inability to control his behaviors.
ISSUE #1. Judge Clark’s Order did not violate Didier’s due process rights nor did it violate Rule 52(a) because Judge Clark properly found that the State had proved all four elements, including that Didier had an inability to control his behaviors, by clear and convincing evidence, and she specifically stated the facts upon which she relied for her legal conclusion.
ISSUE #2. Didier was given a fair hearing comporting with due process including reasonable notice or opportunity of the claims of opposing party and the opportunity to rebut the claims.
Lawrence Didier appeals from a district court order denying his application for discharge.
In May 2010, the State filed a petition for commitment of a sexually dangerous person. In November 2010, the district court ordered Didier’s commitment. Didier filed an application for discharge in April 2018. On January 9, 2019 the court held a hearing on the matter. On January 15, 2019 the court entered an order and opinion, concluding the statutory criteria and substantive due process requirements were satisfied for continued commitment and denying Didier’s application for discharge.
On appeal, Didier argues the district court’s factual basis was insufficient to legally conclude he met the statutory requirement of the inability to control his behavior. Didier also argues he did not receive a hearing that comports with due process.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||01/16/2019||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 01/16/2019|
|2||01/16/2019||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 01/17/2019|
|3||01/16/2019||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||01/16/2019||Notice served on Tyler J. Morrow and Frederick R. Fremgen|
|5||01/21/2019||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JANUARY 18, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 1 - 121)|
|6||03/15/2019||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED JANUARY 9, 2019|
|7||03/15/2019||C.O.S. FOR TRANSCRIPT|
|8||04/24/2019||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|9||04/24/2019||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 05/03/2019|
|12||05/10/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB & ATA from CSD|
|13||05/13/2019||Rec'd $25 e-filing surcharge for ATB (receipt #27059)|
|14||05/13/2019||Rec'd $25 e-filing surcharge for AEB (receipt #27052)|
|16||06/02/2019||Oral Argument Request by Appellee|
|17||06/07/2019||Rec'd non-substantive corrections & proof of svc for AEB|
|18||06/11/2019||Rec'd copies of AEB from Central Duplicating|
|19||08/02/2019||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|