Reierson v. Johnson
2013 ND 146
N.D.2013Background
- State petitioned (Jan 13, 2012) to commit Jeremy Tim Johnson as a "sexually dangerous individual" under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3 based on multiple prior sex-related offenses involving minors (convictions/plea outcomes from 1998, 2003, 2008).
- District court conducted an evidentiary hearing (Aug 21, 2012) with two competing experts: Dr. Jennifer Krance for the State and Dr. Joseph Plaud as Johnson’s independent expert.
- Dr. Krance diagnosed Paraphilia NOS — Hebephilia (non-exclusive), antisocial personality disorder, and alcohol abuse; concluded Johnson has a congenital or acquired disorder manifested as a sexual disorder and is likely to reoffend.
- Dr. Plaud testified Johnson does not have a sexual or personality disorder and disputed Dr. Krance’s conclusions.
- District court found Dr. Krance’s evaluation more credible (noting peer review at the hospital), concluded by clear and convincing evidence that Johnson meets statutory criteria for commitment, and committed him to DHS custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence shows a congenital or acquired condition manifested by a sexual disorder/dysfunction | Johnson: hebephilia is not a sexual/mental disorder (or was not established here); his expert disproves such a disorder | State: Dr. Krance’s diagnosis and SDI evaluation show the required disorder and risk to reoffend | Court: Affirmed district court — Dr. Krance’s opinion was credible and supports commitment by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether district court erred in credibility assessment of conflicting expert testimony | Johnson: district court should have credited Dr. Plaud’s critique | State: district court properly weighed experts and favored Dr. Krance | Court: District court is best factfinder on credibility; will not second-guess its choice to credit Dr. Krance |
| Whether undue weight was given to peer review of Dr. Krance’s report | Johnson: peer-review reliance was improper | State: peer review supports reliability of Dr. Krance’s evaluation | Court: Johnson waived this argument by not objecting at trial; peer review added weight and was permissible |
| Whether statutory standard (likely to reoffend / serious difficulty controlling behavior) was met | Johnson: lacking a qualifying disorder, statutory risk standard not met | State: expert opinion and history demonstrate propensity and lack of control | Court: Statutory standard satisfied based on expert testimony and record evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rubey, 801 N.W.2d 702 (N.D. 2011) (standard for civil commitment of sexually dangerous individuals; State must prove by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.G., 827 N.W.2d 341 (N.D. 2013) (district court is primary credibility finder; appellate review limited)
- In re Hanenberg, 777 N.W.2d 62 (N.D. 2010) (affirming finding of serious difficulty controlling behavior where experts disagreed)
- Spratt v. MDU Resources Group, Inc., 797 N.W.2d 328 (N.D. 2011) (issues not raised below generally cannot be raised on appeal)
- Leno v. K & L Homes, Inc., 803 N.W.2d 543 (N.D. 2011) (failure to object can waive evidentiary challenges)