Matter of Kulink
920 N.W.2d 446
N.D.2018Background
- Aaron J. Kulink, civilly committed as a "sexually dangerous individual," petitioned for annual discharge under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18; hearing held Feb 9, 2018; district court denied discharge Feb 15, 2018.
- Parties stipulated that elements (1) sexually predatory conduct and (2) qualifying mental disorder were met; dispute concerned element (3) likelihood to reoffend and the federal "Crane" requirement (serious difficulty controlling behavior).
- At the hearing, the court heard testimony from two experts (Dr. Jennifer Krance and Dr. Gregory Volk); the district court’s oral/written findings on elements (3) and (Crane) totaled three sentences referencing Dr. Krance’s opinion, unspecified risk factors, and a March 2017 incident (pornography and homemade sex toys).
- Kulink appealed, arguing the district court made insufficient factual findings and that the State failed to prove the two contested elements by clear and convincing evidence.
- The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the district court’s findings were conclusory and legally inadequate under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) and precedent, and remanded for specific factual findings within 30 days; the court did not decide the sufficiency of the evidence on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court made sufficient factual findings on likelihood to reoffend | Findings sufficient because court relied on Dr. Krance’s professional opinion and identified risk factors | Findings too conclusory; lacked identification of which risk factors supported the conclusion | Findings were insufficient; remanded for specific subordinate facts supporting the conclusion |
| Whether district court made sufficient findings on Crane requirement (serious difficulty controlling behavior) | March 2017 incident and expert opinion show present serious difficulty controlling behavior | Nexus between disorder and conduct not explained; court failed to connect disorder to inability to control beyond typical recidivist | Findings were insufficient; remanded for specific findings tying disorder to lack of control |
| Whether appellate court should resolve sufficiency of evidence now | State requested affirmance on record | Kulink requested reversal or remand for findings; raised standard-of-review concerns | Court declined to decide sufficiency of evidence; remanded so district court can make credibility determinations and specific findings (appellate review deferred) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (requiring proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior and a nexus between disorder and dangerousness for civil commitment)
- In re J.M., 713 N.W.2d 518 (N.D. 2006) (interpreting statutory definition to incorporate Crane nexus/Crane element)
- Interest of Nelson, 896 N.W.2d 923 (N.D. 2017) (same modified clearly erroneous standard; Crane requirement discussed)
- Matter of Midgett, 766 N.W.2d 717 (N.D. 2009) (remanding for findings on Crane element)
- In re Johnson, 876 N.W.2d 25 (N.D. 2016) (deference to district court credibility findings; remand for Crane findings)
- O’Hara v. Schneider, 890 N.W.2d 831 (N.D. 2017) (Rule 52(a) requires specific findings of subordinate facts to allow appellate review)
- Rothberg v. Rothberg, 711 N.W.2d 219 (N.D. 2006) (conclusory findings inadequate under Rule 52(a))