Burdick v. Wolff
796 N.W.2d 644
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Wolff was adjudicated a sexually dangerous individual in 2006 and committed to the Department of Human Services.
- In 2010, Wolff filed a petition for discharge and a hearing was held with two expert evaluations.
- Dr. Lynne Sullivan recommended continued commitment; Dr. Robert Riedel recommended discharge.
- The trial court denied discharge after finding Wolff remains a sexually dangerous individual with serious difficulty controlling his behavior.
- Wolff timely appealed the denial, challenging the nexus between his disorder and future dangerousness and the evidence supporting the lack of control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus between disorder and dangerousness | Wolff argues no nexus shown between antisocial personality disorder and future harm | State contends the disorder supports serious difficulty controlling behavior and future dangerousness | Nexus proven; disorder linked to lack of control sufficient for danger |
| Sufficiency of evidence on serious difficulty controlling behavior | State failed to prove serious difficulty controlling behavior by clear and convincing evidence | State presented substantial evidence of lack of control in structured setting | Evidence supports serious difficulty controlling behavior by clear and convincing standard |
| Credibility and weight of expert testimony | Dr. Sullivan’s testimony should be given dispositive weight | Trial court credited Sullivan and discounted Riedel | Court’s credibility determinations are entitled to deference; findings supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Whelan v. A.O., 793 N.W.2d 471 (ND 2011) (review standard for civil commitments; credibility given deference)
- Midgett, 766 N.W.2d 717 (ND 2009) (burden of proof; nexus requirement; clear and convincing standard)
- Interest of J.M., 713 N.W.2d 518 (ND 2006) (nexus between disorder and dangerousness; not necessarily sexual conduct need be shown)
- Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (due process requires connection between disorder and dangerousness; not require sexual conduct)
- R.A.S., 766 N.W.2d 712 (ND 2009) (discusses scope of proof post-initial commitment; disorder vs. conduct)