Enget v. J.T.N.
807 N.W.2d 570
| N.D. | 2011Background
- State petitioned to commit J.T.N. as a sexually dangerous individual in February 2005 and he was committed in July 2005.
- Discharge petitions were filed and withdrawn in 2006, 2007, and 2009, with the current petition filed in February 2010 and a two-day hearing held in November 2010.
- State witnesses Dr. Lisota and Michelle Richardson testified J.T.N. remained dangerous; Lisota concluded continued dangerousness, Richardson reported a flashing incident.
- J.T.N. presented five witnesses (Dr. Riedel, Dr. Campbell, Dr. Benson, Dr. Rosell, Dr. Plaud) who testified he was not sexually dangerous.
- District court found in February 2011 that J.T.N. remained sexually dangerous, based on history, recent conduct, and actuarial testing, and failed discharge.
- The court applied a modified clearly erroneous standard of review and required clear and convincing evidence, giving deference to credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in finding likely to engage in further acts | J.T.N. contends the five experts disagreeing show failure of likelihood as to future predatory acts. | State argues the total record demonstrates likely future predatory conduct despite countervailing expert opinions. | Not clearly erroneous; evidence supports likelihood of future predatory conduct. |
| Whether J.T.N. has serious difficulty controlling his behavior | J.T.N. argues the evidence does not show serious difficulty controlling behavior. | State asserts recent conduct and treatment history show serious difficulty controlling behavior. | Not clearly erroneous; district court’s finding supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether the district court misapplied law re: diagnoses and prior offenses | J.T.N. argues misuse of antisocial personality disorder and improper reliance on prior offenses. | State contends the law allows considering a diagnosed condition and prior conduct when proving ongoing danger. | No reversible error; district court properly considered diagnosis and prior conduct within statutory framework. |
| Whether actuarial test scores improperly dominated the decision | J.T.N. argues raw actuarial scores should not overshadow expert opinions. | State contends actuarial results were one of several corroborating factors. | No error; actuarial scores properly weighed as part of total evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Midgett, 2010 ND 98 (ND 2010) (burden and standard for discharge in SDI proceedings; nexus between disorder and dangerousness)
- Interest of L.D.M., 2011 ND 25 (ND 2011) (credibility determinations and deference in SDI appeals)
- Wolff, 2011 ND 76 (ND 2011) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- G.R.H., 2008 ND 222 (ND 2008) (interpretation of nexus between disorder and dangerousness)
- M.D., 2008 ND 208 (ND 2008) (admissibility and weight of prior conduct evidence)
- Voisine, 2010 ND 17 (ND 2010) (consideration of all relevant conduct in predicting future risk)