Matter of Didier

Docket No. 20190015
Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:30 PM

Docket Info

Title
In the Matter of Lawrence Didier
----------
Frederick Fremgen, Stutsman County State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
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

  • Appellant

    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.

  • Appellee 1

    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.


Summary

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.


Briefs

Filing Date Description
05/03/2019 APPELLANT BRIEF View
06/02/2019 APPELLEE BRIEF View

Counsel

Party Type Name
APPELLANT COURT APPOINTED Tyler J. Morrow - 06923
APPELLEE ASST. STATE'S ATTORNEY Lilie Ann Schoenack - 07931

(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
10 05/03/2019 APPELLANT BRIEF View
11 05/03/2019 APPELLANT APPENDIX
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)
15 06/02/2019 APPELLEE BRIEF View
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