Larson v. Jesson
2014 Minn. App. LEXIS 61
Minn. Ct. App.2014Background
- Larson, committed as a sexually dangerous person in 2008 after serving ~16 years for sexual-assault convictions, petitioned for discharge/provisional discharge in 2010.
- Special review board recommended denial after a 2011 hearing Larson did not attend; he sought reconsideration from the judicial appeal panel.
- The panel appointed Dr. Penny Zwecker to examine Larson; Larson refused to participate and walked out of the interview.
- At the first‑phase judicial hearing (Larson again refused to attend), the panel admitted Dr. Zwecker’s report and testimony: she recommended continued commitment, noting Larson’s refusal to complete sex‑offender treatment, lack of a provisional‑discharge plan, disciplinary incidents including assaultive behavior, and long-term noncompliance.
- The commissioner moved to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(b) after Larson’s presentation; the panel granted the motion, finding Larson failed to meet his burden to produce competent evidence entitling him to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of appellate review for dismissal under Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(b) | N/A (procedural) | Dismissal should be reviewed de novo | De novo review applies to such dismissals; analogous to directed‑verdict standards (Coker) |
| Burden of production at first‑phase hearing | Larson: absence of any sex‑related offenses since 1990 is sufficient to satisfy prima facie burden and shift burden to commissioner | Commissioner: petitioner must present competent evidence addressing treatment status and a discharge plan; mere absence of recent offenses is insufficient | Larson failed to meet burden of production; his solitary proof of no offenses since 1990 does not satisfy statutory criteria for provisional or full discharge |
| Whether Larson qualified for provisional discharge | Larson: not argued beyond the no‑offense showing | Commissioner: Larson’s refusal of treatment, lack of plan, and institutional misconduct show he is not capable of acceptable adjustment | Court: Larson’s nonparticipation in treatment, lack of provisional‑discharge plan, and behavioral incidents defeat provisional‑discharge showing |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 41.02(b) was proper without weighing credibility | Larson: may have implicitly argued the evidence should be viewed favorably | Commissioner: rule permits dismissal if petitioner fails to carry production burden; panel must view evidence in petitioner’s favor but cannot weigh credibility | Court: Panel correctly applied rule—viewing evidence in Larson’s favor, petitioner still failed to produce legally sufficient evidence; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarvis v. Levine, 364 N.W.2d 473 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (standard for reviewing judicial appeal panel factual findings)
- Piotter v. Steffen, 490 N.W.2d 915 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) (appellate review principles for panel decisions)
- Coker v. Jesson, 831 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. 2013) (de novo review for Rule 41.02(b) dismissals and standards for burden of production)
- Coker v. Ludeman, 775 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (treatment of evidentiary burden questions on appeal)
- Braytock v. Jesson, 819 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 2012) (statutory interpretation confirming recodification did not substantively change commitment law)