Grosinger v. J.G.
827 N.W.2d 341
| N.D. | 2013Background
- J.G. was committed as a sexually dangerous individual in 2002; the commitment was not appealed.
- He petitioned for discharge in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2008, each denial not appealed.
- In 2009 he petitioned again; a 2010 hearing denied discharge, which this Court summarily affirmed.
- In 2012 a discharge/annual review hearing occurred with Dr. Lisota and Dr. Benson testifying.
- Dr. Benson questioned whether indecent exposure at age 12 constitutes sexually predatory conduct and cautioned about predicting reoffense in adults.
- Dr. Lisota testified about dynamic risk factors and the likelihood of reoffense, including cognitive and personality impairments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence of sexually predatory conduct | J.G. argues indecent exposure does not meet the statute's sexual act/contact | State contends conduct meets statutory definition via established history | Yes; the district court did not err in finding predatory conduct. |
| Whether the district court properly found a likelihood of reoffense | Benson's views on risk tools invalid for adults create uncertainty | Lisota's dynamic factors show high risk of reoffense despite age of offense | Yes; district court credibility-based finding supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether res judicata barred relitigation of predatory conduct issue | Issue already resolved in prior proceedings | Previous adjudication precludes relitigation | Yes; res judicata bars re-litigation of predatory conduct. |
| Whether the court properly applied legal standards for SDI discharge in this context | Standards require strict proof of current dangerousness | Standards satisfied by evidence of current dangerousness and treatment failure | Yes; due process and statutory standards satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of Maedche, 2010 ND 171 (ND) (addressing whether indecent exposure qualifies as sexually predatory conduct)
- Matter of Rubey, 2012 ND 133 (ND) (modified clear and convincing review; nexus between disorder and dangerousness)
- Matter of Midgett, 2010 ND 98 (ND) (burden to prove remaining SDI by clear and convincing evidence)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (due process requires proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior)
- Matter of G.R.H., 2011 ND 21 (ND) (defines nexus between disorder and dangerousness)
- Laib v. Laib, 2010 ND 62 (ND) (res judicata prohibiting relitigation of issues resolved in prior action)
- Matter of Hanenberg, 2010 ND 8 (ND) (district court as credibility determiner in conflicting expert testimony)