Interest of Corman
2014 ND 88
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Ryan R. Corman has a long history of sexual offenses: a 1987 conviction for molesting a 10‑year‑old and admissions of sexual contact with multiple boys (ages 9–17) from when he was 19–21; later convictions and probation violations involving juveniles and failure to register as a sex offender.
- Repeated refusal or failure to complete sex‑offender treatment (terminated in 2009; refused treatment in prison) and possession of images and materials depicting minors.
- Pre‑release review in 2011 generated mixed recommendations; probation officer sought civil commitment. Grand Forks County filed an amended petition to civilly commit Corman as a sexually dangerous individual.
- District court appointed independent and state psychological evaluators; Dr. Sullivan (State) diagnosed Paraphilia NOS (pedophilia, hebephilia) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder with antisocial traits and recommended commitment; Dr. Volk (independent) agreed treatment was needed but was less definitive on future dangerousness.
- District court adopted Dr. Sullivan’s findings and committed Corman to the ND Dept. of Human Services as a sexually dangerous individual. Corman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Corman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence shows Corman has a qualifying mental/sexual disorder | State: Dr. Sullivan’s diagnosis (Paraphilia NOS—pedophilia/hebephilia—and narcissistic PD with antisocial traits) supported by history, testing, and conduct | Corman: DSM changes, alleged misdiagnosis, limited documentation, no personal interview by Dr. Sullivan, and possible alternative causes (head trauma) | Court: Affirmed—district court permissibly relied on Dr. Sullivan; diagnosis supported by record |
| Whether Corman is likely to engage in further sexually predatory conduct | State: diagnosis + actuarial results + history of grooming, possession of materials, probation noncompliance, admissions justify finding of future risk | Corman: long lapse (≈25+ years) without documented predatory contact, 2007 offense and possession do not meet statutory “sexually predatory conduct,” and court gave improper weight to Dr. Sullivan | Court: Affirmed—court found ample evidence (past conduct, admissions, expert opinions, failed treatment/compliance) supporting likelihood of future predatory acts |
| Whether Corman has serious difficulty controlling his behavior (due‑process nexus) | State: repeated probation violations, inability/refusal to complete treatment, persistent grooming behaviors and denial show inability to control behavior | Corman: failure to complete treatment and noncompliance are not equivalent to lack of control; long period without documented offenses shows control; this should be addressed criminally rather than civilly | Court: Affirmed—evidence of repetitive misconduct, treatment refusal, possession of child‑oriented sexual material, and probation violations support serious difficulty controlling behavior |
| Standard of review and whether district court clearly erred | State: district court’s factual findings reviewed under modified clearly erroneous standard; substantial evidence supports findings | Corman: challenges to weight/credit of evidence require reweighing, which appellate court should not do; asserting clear error due to ignored long latency | Court: Affirmed—the modified clearly erroneous standard applied; record contained clear and convincing evidence to sustain commitment |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of Johnson, 835 N.W.2d 806 (N.D. 2013) (modified clearly erroneous standard for civil commitment)
- Matter of Mangelsen, 843 N.W.2d 8 (N.D. 2014) (statutory elements for sexually dangerous individual)
- Matter of Wolff, 796 N.W.2d 644 (N.D. 2011) (appellate review refrains from reweighing evidence; actuarial scores are factors, not determinative)
- In re M.D., 598 N.W.2d 799 (N.D. 1999) (prior case affirming commitment where evidence showed grooming, probation violations, and failure of treatment)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (due‑process requirement that civil commitment show nexus between mental disorder and dangerousness)