Braylock v. Jesson
2012 Minn. LEXIS 389
| Minn. | 2012Background
- Braylock is an 80-year-old civilly committed, Level-3 sex offender seeking discharge from SDP commitment.
- Braylock was initially involuntarily committed as a SDP after 2005 proceedings and an indeterminate commitment.
- In November 2008 Braylock petitioned the Review Board for provisional or full discharge under Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 4(c).
- The Review Board recommended denial; Braylock sought rehearing before the Appeal Panel, which denied the petition in August 2010 after an evidentiary hearing.
- During Braylock’s petition, the Legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(d) (effective August 1, 2010) to redefine the burden on petitioners and respondents.
- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the Appeal Panel’s denial in March 2011; this Court granted review on whether the amended provision applies retroactively to Braylock’s 2008 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2010 amendment to § 253B.19, subd. 2(d) is a clarification or substantive change. | Braylock contends the amendment creates a higher burden. | Respondents argue the amendment clarifies preexisting law. | Amendment is a clarification; retroactive application applied. |
| If the amendment is clarifying, does it apply to pending petitions like Braylock’s? | Yes, Braylock’s pending petition should be governed by the amended standard. | No, retroactivity must follow clarification rule. | Amendment applies to Braylock’s petition. |
| Did the amendment alter the burden of production vs. persuasion in discharge proceedings? | Braylock claims the amendment shifts burden to petitioner. | Respondents maintain burden of persuasion remains on the opponent; production burden clarified. | Burden is production; no shift in persuasion. |
| What is the proper interpretation of the term “prima facie case” in amended § 253B.19, subd. 2(d)? | Meant to raise the required quantum/quality of evidence. | Meant to define going-forward-with-evidence standard. | Prima facie case refers to initial burden of production, not enhanced persuasion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Niska, 514 N.W.2d 260 (Minn. 1994) (clarification vs. modification; amendment language comparison)
- Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Perry, 749 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 2008) (presumption of change in law; rebuttable for clarifications)
- Frieler v. Carlson Mktg. Grp., Inc., 751 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 2008) (clarification vs. modification; legislative intent)
- Coker v. Ludeman, 775 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. App. 2009) (burden of production; prima facie case context)
- State v. Butler (Estate of Butler), 803 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 2011) (statutory interpretation; de novo review of amendment purpose)
- Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482 (U.S. 1977) (prima facie case concept; burden-shifting guidance)