Matter of Hehn, 868 N.W.2d 551

Background

Darl Hehn, civilly committed as a "sexually dangerous individual" since 2006 following convictions for sexual offenses, sought discharge; the district court denied his 2014 petition after an evidentiary hearing.
The district court found by clear and convincing evidence Hehn engaged in sexually predatory conduct, suffers a disorder (including borderline personality traits), is likely to reoffend, and has serious difficulty controlling his behavior.
Hehn did not contest the district court’s substantive findings on appeal; instead he raised procedural and statutory/constitutional claims about (1) the State Hospital withholding sex-offender treatment and (2) procedural due process failures at the hearing (denial of subpoenas/witnesses and being kept handcuffed).
The State argued Hehn failed to properly preserve or pursue discovery/subpoenas (service defects and failure to follow rules) and that Hehn’s own misconduct at the hospital limited his treatment progression.
The district court declined to order production or transport of multiple hospital staff/residents after procedural defects; it also left restraint decisions to the sheriff rather than making individualized on-the-record findings.
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed: it held Hehn waived his statutory/constitutional challenge about withheld treatment, found the court’s delegation on restraints was error but harmless given Hehn’s security history, and declined to review subpoena/discovery rulings because of procedural noncompliance and an inadequate record.

Issues

Issue	Hehn's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether State Hospital withheld sex-offender treatment in violation of statutory and constitutional rights	Hehn: Hospital denied treatment as punishment while committed, making confinement punitive and violating: statutory right to treatment, substantive due process, and Eighth Amendment	State: Hehn raised these constitutional claims too late; no record of withholding — treatment available but Hehn’s misconduct prevented advancement	Waived — Hehn failed to raise these claims below; court declined to address them on appeal
Whether district court erred by denying subpoenas and witnesses from State Hospital	Hehn: Denial prevented access to confidential records and witnesses (write-ups, treatment plan), violating procedural due process and cross-examination rights	State: Subpoenas improperly served and procedurally defective; transporting committed individuals posed undue burden; record (no transcript of telephonic hearing) inadequate for review	Not reviewed on appeal — discovery/subpoena defects and lack of transcript prevent meaningful review
Whether court erred by leaving Hehn handcuffed without individualized on-the-record findings	Hehn: Court failed to make required individualized findings showing restraints necessary and narrowly tailored, violating due process	State: Security concerns justified restraint; sheriff’s discretion appropriate given safety record	Error: Court should have made individualized findings, but error was harmless given evidence Hehn posed security risk
Standard and sufficiency of evidence for continued commitment	Hehn: Argued lack of proof of specific diagnoses like hebephilia and that lesser restrictive treatment could work	State: Presented experts and records supporting statutory elements and nexus to dangerousness	Not disputed on appeal; court’s findings sustained — Hehn did not directly challenge substantive findings

Key Cases Cited

In re M.D., 598 N.W.2d 799 (N.D. 1999) (civil nature of sexually dangerous commitment proceedings)
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (due-process requirement that committed sexual predators have serious difficulty controlling behavior)
In re G.R.H., 711 N.W.2d 587 (N.D. 2006) (requirement of nexus between disorder and dangerousness to satisfy substantive due process)
In re Wolff, 796 N.W.2d 644 (N.D. 2011) (conduct demonstrating difficulty controlling behavior need not be sexual)
In re G.L.D., 855 N.W.2d 99 (N.D. 2014) (scope of discovery and access to individually identifiable health information in commitment proceedings)
In re Hoff, 830 N.W.2d 608 (N.D. 2013) (trial court must make individualized on-the-record findings before ordering restraints; harmless-error framework)
In re R.W.S., 728 N.W.2d 326 (N.D. 2007) (factors to consider when ordering restraints in involuntary commitment contexts)