Lund v. Lund, 2012 ND 255

M.D. petitioned for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual.
M.D. previously pled guilty to gross sexual imposition in 1993 and was committed in 1998.
This Court affirmed prior commitment and later petitions for discharge were denied (2007, 2010).
In November 2010, M.D. sought discharge; the State filed reevaluation and updated expert reports.
A hearing was initially set for Oct. 28, 2011; the State moved for a continuance due to Dr. Lisota’s medical emergency; continuation was granted.
The discharge hearing was held Jan. 27, 2012; the court found M.D. remains a sexually dangerous individual and denied discharge on Feb. 21, 2012; decision affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s denial of discharge was clearly erroneous	M.D. argues evidence shows low reoffense risk and ability to control behavior	State contends clear and convincing evidence supports remaining sexually dangerous	Affirmed; district court’s finding upheld
Whether the continuance was an abuse of discretion	M.D. contends continuance was improper and prejudicial	State justifies continuance due to medical emergency and readiness of witness	Affirmed; no abuse of discretion

In re J.T.N., 2011 ND 231 (ND 2011) (clear and convincing standard for discharge; credibility deference)
Rubey, 2012 ND 133 (ND 2012) (propensity to reoffend and dangerousness must be proven; weights of evidence)
In re M.D., 1999 ND 160, 598 N.W.2d 799 (ND 1999) (first commitment under ch. 25-03.3; long history of treatment)
In re M.D., 2008 ND 208, 757 N.W.2d 559 (ND 2008) (discharge petition review; treatment history as factor)
In re M.D., 2010 ND 190, 795 N.W.2d 37 (ND 2010) (affirmation of district court denial of discharge)
In re R.O., 2002 ND 154, 652 N.W.2d 327 (ND 2002) (district court discretion on continuances)
In re Hehn, 2008 ND 36, 745 N.W.2d 631 (ND 2008) (actuarial tools; not dispositive of individual outcome)