Interest of Skorick, 946 N.W.2d 513

In Sept. 2018 the State petitioned to civilly commit Edward Skorick as a "sexually dangerous individual"; two examiners (Dr. Richard Travis and Dr. Stacey Benson) prepared reports concluding commitment was warranted.
At the Sept. 2019 commitment hearing Dr. Travis testified; Dr. Benson did not testify.
Defense moved to strike Dr. Travis’ written report on the ground it was not offered into evidence; the court denied the motion and stated the report "stands as part of the record."
The district court expressly stated it had "received and reviewed" Dr. Benson’s report and relied on both psychologists’ evaluative findings in making statutory findings and ordering civil commitment.
On appeal the State conceded the court may have erroneously considered Dr. Benson’s unadmitted report; the Supreme Court concluded the court abused its discretion in considering Benson’s report and was uncertain whether Travis’ report was properly part of the hearing record.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded: it vacated the commitment order and directed the district court to determine whether Travis’ report was part of the hearing record, and if not, to make findings based solely on admissible evidence (including Travis’ testimony if he testified).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Skorick)	Held
Whether the district court may rely on expert reports not offered into evidence at the hearing	Reports were filed in the court system (Odyssey) and expert reports are admissible under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13	Unoffered reports were hearsay and should not be considered; defense moved to strike Travis’ report	Court abused its discretion in considering Dr. Benson’s unoffered report; reliance was not harmless and required reversal and remand
Whether Dr. Travis’ written report was part of the hearing record such that the court could rely on it	State contended filing sufficed and Travis’ report could be considered	Defense moved to strike the report at hearing arguing it was not offered as an exhibit	Supreme Court could not determine from record whether Travis’ report was admitted; remanded for determination; if not admitted, court must base findings on Travis’ in‑court testimony
Whether any erroneous consideration of the reports was harmless error	State argued any error was harmless because admissible testimony (esp. Travis’ testimony) supported commitment	Skorick argued reliance on unadmitted reports was prejudicial	Majority: Benson reliance not harmless; remand required. Justice McEvers (dissent) would have found any error harmless based on Travis’ testimony

State v. Muhammad, 2019 ND 159, 931 N.W.2d 181 (N.D. 2019) (standard for abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
Matter of Gomez, 2018 ND 16, 906 N.W.2d 87 (N.D. 2018) (N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13 permits admission of examiner reports that otherwise would be hearsay)
State v. Azure, 2017 ND 195, 899 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 2017) (harmless error review and consideration of entire record)
Matter of G.R.H., 2006 ND 56, 711 N.W.2d 587 (N.D. 2006) (nexus requirement: disorder must involve serious difficulty controlling behavior)
Matter of Barrera, 2008 ND 25, 744 N.W.2d 744 (N.D. 2008) (statutory definition and framework for sexually dangerous individual commitment)
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (due process limits on commitment; need for nexus between disorder and dangerousness)
Interest of J.S.L., 2009 ND 43, 763 N.W.2d 783 (N.D. 2009) (appellant bears burden to show error was prejudicial under N.D.R.Civ.P. 61)