Guardianship of J.S.L.F.
2013 ND 31
| N.D. | 2013Background
- J.G. was committed as a sexually dangerous individual in 2002; he petitioned for discharge multiple times, with prior denials not appealed.
- In March 2012, a discharge hearing occurred with two psychologists diagnosing a sexual disorder and related conditions, but disagreeing on past predatory conduct and likelihood of reoffense.
- Dr. Benson questioned whether indecent exposure at age 12 counts as sexually predatory conduct and whether juvenile risk tools apply to an adult.
- Dr. Lisota identified multiple dynamic risk factors indicating high risk of future sexually offensive behavior and difficulty controlling conduct.
- District court found clear and convincing evidence that J.G. remains sexually dangerous and is likely to reoffend; ordered continued commitment.
- J.G. appeals, challenging both the predatory conduct finding and the likelihood of reoffense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there clear and convincing evidence of sexually predatory conduct? | Grosinger argues predatory conduct not proven by statute. | G.J. contends indicators were insufficient or not properly defined. | District court's finding supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Is J.G. likely to reoffend based on the evidence? | State showed high risk via dynamic factors and failure of treatment. | Benson argues risk tools are inappropriate for an adult with childhood offenses. | District court did not err; clear and convincing evidence supports likelihood of reoffense. |
| Does res judicata bar relitigating predatory conduct at discharge? | Earlier final judgments resolved whether predatory conduct occurred. | Relitigation should be allowed if new discharge petition shows ongoing danger. | Res judicata bars relitigation of predatory conduct issues from prior proceedings. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion by rejecting juvenile tools for risk assessment in favor of dynamic factors? | Dynamic factors corroborate risk despite juvenile instruments becoming less applicable. | Adult risk assessment should rely less on juvenile tools. | Court properly weighed risk factors and credibility of experts; not abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Rubey, 2012 ND 133 (ND 2012) (clear and convincing standard for discharge; nexus between disorder and dangerousness)
- Matter of Midgett, 2010 ND 98 (ND 2010) (discharge burden and criteria for sexually dangerous individuals)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (due process requires serious difficulty controlling behavior)
- Matter of G.R.H., 2011 ND 21 (ND 2011) (nexus between disorder and dangerousness; distinguishes sexually dangerous individuals)
- Matter of Hanenberg, 2010 ND 8 (ND 2010) (district court as credibility evaluator; defer to credibility findings)
- Laib v. Laib, 2010 ND 62 (ND 2010) (res judicata; relitigation limitations in prior actions)
- Interest of Maedche, 2010 ND 171 (ND 2010) (indecent exposure may not be a sexual act/contact; context for predatory conduct)