In re the Civil Commitment of Ince
2014 Minn. LEXIS 197
| Minn. | 2014Background
- Ince was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person under Minn. Stat. § 25BB.185 after a petition filed the day before his release from prison for third-degree criminal sexual conduct.
- The petition challenged whether there was clear and convincing evidence that Ince is likely to engage in harmful sexual conduct and whether a less restrictive alternative exists.
- The district court largely accepted Dr. Marston’s opinions and ordered commitment to MSOP, finding no less restrictive alternative.
- Ince had prior sexual offenses dating from when he was a minor and again as an adult, with alcohol dependence and incomplete participation in sex offender programs while incarcerated.
- Evidence included actuarial risk assessments (RRASOR, Static-99R, MnSOST-3.1) yielding mixed risk levels and a Linehan-factor framework for determining likelihood.
- The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review to clarify the Linehan-based standard and the availability of a less restrictive alternative, ultimately remanding for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard of likelihood applies? | Ince: likelihood should be ‘substantially certain’ | County: standard remains ‘highly likely’ | ‘Highly likely’ standard reaffirmed |
| Should Linehan factors coexist with actuarial evidence in a multi-factor analysis? | Linehan factors remain valid but overpowered by actuarial tools | Actuarial evidence is relevant within a multi-factor framework | Court endorses multi-factor approach; do not confine to Linehan factors alone |
| Was there a valid determination that no less restrictive alternative exists? | Ince provided viable outpatient and community treatment options | MSOP inpatient treatment was necessary for public safety | Remanded to reconsider availability and findings on a less restrictive alternative |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Linehan, 518 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1994) (Linehan I—defines standard for SDP; factors and risk assessment framework)
- In re Linehan, 557 N.W.2d 171 (Minn. 1996) (Linehan III—‘highly likely’ standard; multi-factor approach; due process concerns)
- In re Linehan, 594 N.W.2d 867 (Minn. 1999) (Linehan IV—dangerousness plus disorder; limits on preventive detention; framework for prediction)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979) (due process and standard of proof in civil commitment contexts)
- Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1983) (discusses limits of statistical prediction in individual risk)
- In re Senty-Haugen, 588 N.W.2d 266 (Minn. 1998) (less restrictive alternative and findings of fact for commitment)
- Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 1994) (acknowledges broader evidentiary considerations in commitment)