Interest of Nelson
2017 ND 152
N.D.2017Background
- Danny R. Nelson was civilly committed by the Ramsey County District Court as a “sexually dangerous individual” and ordered to the State Hospital; he appealed.
- The North Dakota Supreme Court previously remanded for more specific findings on (1) likelihood of future sexually predatory conduct and (2) present serious difficulty controlling behavior.
- The district court issued supplemental findings relying primarily on Dr. Krance’s diagnosis (Unspecified Paraphilic Disorder, Antisocial/Narcissistic features), past offending (1992 unlawful entries; 2009 continuous sexual abuse of a child), and risk instruments (Static-99R, STABLE-2007).
- The State argued those findings demonstrated a nexus between Nelson’s disorders and future dangerousness; Nelson emphasized remoteness of some conduct, completion of sex-offender treatment (2010, 2014), and lack of recent sexually predatory behavior.
- The majority concluded the district court’s supplemental findings were legally insufficient — they did not identify recent conduct or specific evidence showing present serious difficulty controlling behavior — and reversed the commitment, ordering Nelson’s release.
- A dissenting justice would have affirmed, emphasizing Nelson’s long history, psychometric risk scores, and expert opinion that he poses a high risk to reoffend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Nelson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved Nelson is likely to engage in further sexually predatory conduct | Nelson’s diagnoses, expert opinion, and historical pattern (including offenses while on supervision) show a nexus to future dangerousness | Historical offenses are remote; diagnosis alone and old conduct do not prove current likelihood; completed treatment and lack of recent incidents undercut likelihood | Reversed: findings insufficient to show present likelihood of future sexually predatory conduct |
| Whether Nelson has a present serious difficulty controlling his behavior (constitutional requirement) | Dr. Krance and risk instruments indicate impulsivity, lack of insight, substance problems, and dynamic risk factors demonstrating serious difficulty | No recent examples of inability to control behavior; prison conduct and treatment completion show controllability; court relied on remote history | Reversed: district court failed to make specific, recent factual findings to support serious difficulty controlling behavior |
Key Cases Cited
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (civil commitment requires proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior to distinguish from ordinary recidivists)
- Matter of Wolff, 796 N.W.2d 644 (N.D. 2011) (nexus requirement and deference to credibility of experts; disorder must show serious difficulty controlling behavior)
- Matter of Johnson, 876 N.W.2d 25 (N.D. 2016) (district court must state specific factual findings supporting commitment elements)
- Matter of Midgett, 766 N.W.2d 717 (N.D. 2009) (standard of review for sexually dangerous individual commitments)