Rolette County State's Attorney v. L.D.M.
793 N.W.2d 778
| N.D. | 2011Background
- In 2004 L.D.M. was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual, and an appellate affirmation followed in 2005.
- In December 2008 L.D.M. filed a petition for discharge to review his status.
- In February 2009, the State’s expert Dr. Sullivan completed an annual evaluation recommending continued commitment; independent expert Dr. Benson also evaluated in October 2009 and opined continued dangerousness.
- A discharge hearing occurred March 23, 2010; evidence included expert testimony, reports, and L.D.M.’s own exhibits.
- The trial court denied discharge, concluding based on the experts’ agreement that L.D.M. remains sexually dangerous and likely to commit future acts, keeping him in DHS custody.
- L.D.M. timely appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the trial court’s findings to support its decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of findings under Rule 52(a) | L.D.M. argues the court failed to state specific facts supporting its conclusion. | State contends the expert consensus provides sufficient basis for the ruling. | Remand for explicit findings of fact is required. |
| Nexus between disorder and dangerousness | L.D.M. contends the court did not separately connect the disorder to the dangerousness finding. | State relies on expert testimony that L.D.M. has serious difficulty controlling behavior. | Court must set forth factual basis linking disorder to dangerousness with controlled reasoning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Midgett, 783 N.W.2d 27 (2010 ND 98) (established standard and need for specific findings under Rule 52(a))
- Interest of Maedche, 788 N.W.2d 331 (2010 ND 171) (requires nexus between disorder and dangerousness)
- Matter of T.O., 793 N.W.2d 204 (2011 ND 9) (detailed findings inform evidentiary basis of decision)
- Interest of L.D.M., 704 N.W.2d 838 (2005 ND 177) (previous affirmation of commitment in this respondent)