915 N.W.2d 647
N.D.2018Background
- Raymond Voisine was convicted in 2004 of gross sexual imposition for sexual contact with a young grandson and has a history of incestuous relations with adult daughters; DNA established he fathered children with at least two daughters.
- After release from prison, the State successfully petitioned to civilly commit Voisine as a "sexually dangerous individual," and multiple prior hearings and appeals have upheld his commitment.
- In December 2016 Voisine petitioned for discharge; a November 30, 2017 review hearing featured testimony and reports from the State’s expert (Dr. Peter Byrne) and Voisine’s evaluator (Dr. Stacey Benson).
- The district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Voisine continues to meet the statutory criteria (sexual disorder/personality or other mental disorder; likelihood to reoffend; serious difficulty controlling behavior) and ordered continued civil commitment.
- Voisine appealed, arguing insufficient evidence as to the diagnosed disorder, risk of reoffense, and inability to control behavior, and that the court improperly applied res judicata to prior experts’ findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports a present sexual disorder (prong 2) | Voisine: district court relied on prior experts and Dr. Byrne without rigorous analysis; Dr. Benson’s dysthymia diagnosis is correct | State: Dr. Byrne’s diagnosis of unspecified paraphilic disorder is consistent with multiple prior experts | Court: Affirmed — court credited Dr. Byrne over Dr. Benson; findings sufficient and not barred by res judicata |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence shows high likelihood of reoffending (prong 3) | Voisine: static actuarial scores were low; Dr. Byrne’s analysis (including VRS-SO) overstated risk | State: experts may use full range of instruments and clinical judgment; dynamic factors and VRS-SO support high risk | Court: Affirmed — court credited Dr. Byrne’s more comprehensive assessment and found clear and convincing evidence of likelihood to reoffend |
| Whether Voisine has serious difficulty controlling his behavior (due process/Kansas v. Crane nexus) | Voisine: Dr. Benson opined he would not have serious difficulty outside hospital | State: lack of treatment progress, poor participation, past predatory conduct against family, and institutional write-ups indicate serious difficulty | Court: Affirmed — court found insufficient treatment progress/participation and other conduct support finding of serious difficulty controlling behavior |
| Whether the court improperly applied res judicata to prior expert findings | Voisine: court indicated it would not "overrule" previous judges and thus disregarded Dr. Benson’s fresh testimony | State: written findings show the court considered both experts and explained reasons for preferring Dr. Byrne | Court: Affirmed — oral colloquy did not control; written findings show court considered evidence and did not invoke res judicata improperly |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of Tanner, 897 N.W.2d 901 (N.D. 2017) (standard of review and deference to district court credibility in SDI commitment reviews)
- Matter of Wolff, 796 N.W.2d 644 (N.D. 2011) (construction of "sexually dangerous individual" and deference to court’s credibility determinations)
- Matter of Hehn, 868 N.W.2d 551 (N.D. 2015) (State’s burden at discharge hearing is clear and convincing evidence)
- Matter of Hehn, 745 N.W.2d 631 (N.D. 2008) (due process requires proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior; citing Kansas v. Crane)
- Interest of J.M., 713 N.W.2d 518 (N.D. 2006) (nexus requirement between disorder and dangerousness)
- Interest of Graham, 837 N.W.2d 382 (N.D. 2013) (district court may err by treating prior experts’ conclusions as res judicata absent new facts)
- Matter of Voisine, 777 N.W.2d 908 (N.D. 2010) (use of full conduct/history in assessing congenital/acquired conditions and risk)