Interest of T.A.G., 2019 ND 115

Background

T.A.G. is civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual; parties stipulated to the first two statutory elements (past sexually predatory conduct and a qualifying disorder).
On September 7, 2018 the district court held an annual review hearing; testimony included Dr. Erik Fox and T.A.G.
The district court denied T.A.G.’s petition for discharge on October 17, 2018, finding he has behavioral incidents at the State Hospital and a cyclical pattern in treatment.
The court relied on Dr. Fox’s report listing behavioral write-ups (approximately 30 pages) and prognostic factors such as psychopathy, drug dependence, and sexual preoccupation.
T.A.G. challenged the denial on appeal, arguing the district court’s findings were insufficient and the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is likely to reoffend and that his disorder causes serious difficulty controlling behavior (the Crane nexus).
The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and remanded, instructing the district court to make specific findings on likelihood to reoffend and the Crane serious-difficulty-to-control-behavior requirement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State met its burden that respondent is likely to reoffend	State asserted behavioral incidents plus static/prognostic risk factors (psychopathy, drug dependence, sexual preoccupation) show likelihood	T.A.G. argued the court’s findings are conclusory and do not tie specific facts to likelihood to reoffend	Court: Findings were insufficiently specific; remand for detailed findings on which risk factors support likelihood to reoffend
Whether respondent has serious difficulty controlling behavior (Crane nexus)	State relied on treatment write-ups and expert opinion to show nexus between disorder and inability to control behavior	T.A.G. argued the district court failed to explain how incidents demonstrate a disorder-based inability to control, distinguishing him from a typical recidivist	Court: District court did not make the necessary Crane-specific findings linking disorder to serious difficulty controlling behavior; remand for specific findings
Whether district court complied with Rule 52(a) requirements for findings	State implied existing findings and testimony suffice for appellate review	T.A.G. argued Rule 52(a) requires specific subordinate facts, not conclusory statements	Court: Rule 52(a) requires specific subordinate factual findings; existing findings were too general for meaningful appellate review
Whether appellate standard of review was applied correctly	State relied on deference to credibility and modified clearly erroneous standard	T.A.G. argued record does not meet clear-and-convincing proof without sufficient findings	Court: Affirmed applicable standards but concluded current findings do not permit review under those standards and remanded for further findings

Key Cases Cited

Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (Crane requires nexus showing that a disorder causes serious difficulty controlling behavior to distinguish civilly commitable sexual offenders from ordinary recidivists)
Interest of Nelson, 896 N.W.2d 923 (N.D. 2017) (modified clearly erroneous standard and necessity of adequate findings in sexually dangerous commitments)
In re Johnson, 876 N.W.2d 25 (N.D. 2016) (deference to trial court credibility determinations for expert testimony)
In re Whitetail, 835 N.W.2d 827 (N.D. 2013) (due process requires proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior)
In re J.M., 713 N.W.2d 518 (N.D. 2006) (Crane requirement incorporated into state definition of sexually dangerous individual)
O'Hara v. Schneider, 890 N.W.2d 831 (N.D. 2017) (Rule 52(a) requires specific subordinate facts to support ultimate conclusions)
Matter of Kulink, 920 N.W.2d 446 (N.D. 2018) (insufficient findings may require reversal in commitment matters)
Matter of Midgett, 766 N.W.2d 717 (N.D. 2009) (remand or reversal when trial court’s findings are inadequate)