Interest of Graham
2013 ND 171
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Matthew Graham, committed as a sexually dangerous individual in 2007 after sexual offenses against minors as a juvenile, petitioned for discharge repeatedly (2008, 2010, 2012); most recent denial was March 7, 2013.
- Psychological experts agreed Graham engaged in sexually predatory conduct but disputed whether he has a congenital/acquired disorder (pedophilia, personality disorder) that causes serious difficulty controlling behavior.
- At the 2013 annual review, Dr. Gilbertson again contested prior diagnoses; the district court excluded portions of his testimony on res judicata grounds, treating the diagnoses as conclusively determined by earlier unappealed orders.
- The district court relied on this exclusion and prior findings to deny discharge, concluding Graham remained a sexually dangerous individual.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether res judicata can bar relitigation of the second element (existence of a disorder manifested by a sexual/personality/mental dysfunction) at an annual review required by N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata can bar relitigation of element two (existence of a congenital/acquired disorder manifested by a sexual/personality/mental dysfunction) at annual review hearings | State: element one (past predatory conduct) can be precluded by res judicata; did not explicitly argue element two was res judicata in this case | Graham: the State must prove each statutory element each hearing; res judicata should not prevent relitigation of element two | Court: res judicata may apply to the historical first element but not to the second element; district court erred excluding expert testimony on element two under res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.G., 827 N.W.2d 341 (N.D. 2013) (held historical predatory conduct can be precluded by res judicata)
- Matter of G.R.H., 711 N.W.2d 587 (N.D. 2006) (requires proof of nexus showing disorder involves serious difficulty controlling behavior)
- In re E.W.F., 751 N.W.2d 686 (N.D. 2008) (explains constitutional inquiry into ability to control behavior)
- In re Vantreece, 771 N.W.2d 585 (N.D. 2009) (describes statutory and constitutional burdens at commitment proceedings)
- In re M.D., 598 N.W.2d 799 (N.D. 1999) (burden of proof on state remains at commitment reviews)
- State v. Doppler, 828 N.W.2d 502 (N.D. 2013) (district court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence)