Pember v. Shapiro
2011 ND 31
| N.D. | 2011Background
- G.R.H. has been civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual since 2004; district court orders denying discharge have affirmed over multiple years.
- A discharge hearing occurred in April 2009, focusing on expert testimony from Dr. Sullivan and Dr. Riedel regarding the three-part classification under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(8).
- Dr. Sullivan opined G.R.H. met all three requirements: prior sexually predatory conduct, a sexual disorder or related condition, and likelihood of further predatory conduct.
- Dr. Riedel agreed on the first two requirements but declined to find that G.R.H. would likely engage in further predatory conduct, arguing some risk assessments were outdated.
- The district court found all three requirements were met and denied discharge; the court also considered admissions made by G.R.H. in treatment as part of the evidence.
- This Court affirms the district court, holding the civil commitment framework is civil (not punitive) and that the evidence supports the third requirement and serious difficulty controlling behavior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether treatment admissions were properly considered | G.R.H. argues admissions are self-incriminating and punitive. | Larson contends admissions are permissible to protect the public and aid treatment. | Yes; admissions may be considered under the civil framework. |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence shows likelihood of further predatory conduct | The State proved likelihood via expert testimony and risk assessments. | The evidence relied on outdated/ unreliable tests; overall risk not clear and convincing. | Not clearly erroneous; the district court’s finding supported by the experts and record. |
| Whether there was a serious difficulty in controlling behavior | State demonstrates persistent behavioral issues and control problems. | Past rule violations and testing do not prove serious control problems. | The district court properly found serious difficulty controlling his behavior. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (upholds civil commitment with proper procedures and evidence; requires nexus to disorder and dangerousness)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (requires a nexus between mental disorder and dangerousness; supports civil commitment framework)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (factors for determining punitive vs civil penalties (Kennedy factors))
- State v. Kelly, 631 N.W.2d 167 (2001) (Kennedy factors applied to determine civil penalties not punitive in nature)
- Maedche, 2010 ND 171, 788 N.W.2d 331 (2010) (modified clearly erroneous standard; review of commitment orders)
- In re M.D., 1999 ND 160, 598 N.W.2d 799 (1999) (Kennedy/Mendoza framework; civil commitment standards)
- U.S. v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (illustrates that detention does not necessarily constitute punishment)