Interest of Tanner, 897 N.W.2d 901

Kelly Tanner, convicted of sexual assault in 2008 and later for failure to register, was civilly committed as a "sexually dangerous individual" after incarceration; prior commitment was affirmed on appeal.
Tanner filed successive petitions for discharge (2013, 2014, 2015); district court continued commitment each time; Tanner appealed the 2016 denial.
The 2015/2016 discharge proceeding included evaluations and testimony from two experts: the State’s evaluator Dr. Krance and the independent evaluator Dr. Benson.
District court found Dr. Krance more credible, relied on Tanner’s diagnoses (including Antisocial Personality Disorder and high psychopathy), actuarial risk scores, and behavioral writeups for inappropriate touching while confined.
Court concluded Tanner remains likely to reoffend and has serious difficulty controlling his behavior, and denied discharge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Tanner remains a "sexually dangerous individual" (statutory elements)	State: expert testimony, actuarial risk, and institutional misconduct show Tanner still meets statutory elements and is likely to reoffend	Tanner: Dr. Benson testified to significant improvement and recommended release; State failed to meet clear-and-convincing standard	Affirmed — court gave greater weight to State’s expert, found statutory elements satisfied by clear and convincing evidence
Whether the State met substantive due process requirement (proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior / nexus)	State: repeated sexually acting-out conduct in a monitored hospital setting, diagnoses, and psychopathy establish lack of control and nexus to risk	Tanner: argues improvement and expert support for release undercuts finding of lack of control	Affirmed — court found serious difficulty controlling behavior and sufficient nexus per Crane
Whether district court erred by preferring one expert over another	State: trial court may resolve conflicting expert testimony and assess credibility	Tanner: court improperly discounted Dr. Benson’s opinion	Affirmed — appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations; choice between permissible views not clearly erroneous

Matter of Midgett, 766 N.W.2d 717 (N.D. 2009) (standard of review for civil commitments)
Matter of Wolff, 796 N.W.2d 644 (N.D. 2011) (requires proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior and nexus between disorder and dangerousness)
Matter of Hehn, 868 N.W.2d 551 (N.D. 2015) (State must prove continued status under statutory definition by clear and convincing evidence)
Matter of Rubey, 801 N.W.2d 702 (N.D. 2011) (interpretation of "likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct")
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (constitutional requirement that lack-of-control be shown to justify civil commitment)