Sateren v. Sateren, 2013 ND 12

J.M. was committed in Oct. 2005 as a sexually dangerous individual after a 2001 conviction for gross sexual imposition involving a nine-year-old.
The Supreme Court previously affirmed commitment and addressed timing of a commitment hearing in 2006.
Commitment orders continued in Aug. 2007, Feb. 2009, and Dec. 2010, with a summary affirmation in 2011.
In 2011, J.M. petitioned for discharge and the district court heard from the State’s expert, Dr. Krance, and J.M.’s expert, Dr. Benson, who provided reports.
Dr. Krance testified she did not review J.M.’s entire 2,000-page file but did review chart information, treatment progress, prior evaluations, and collateral information.
J.M. moved to strike Dr. Krance’s testimony and report; the district court ruled the issue went to weight, not admissibility, and denied the motion.
The district court found clear and convincing evidence that J.M. remains a sexually dangerous individual, linking his condition to dangerous behavior.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by not striking Dr. Krance’s testimony.	J.M. argues Krance’s failure to review the full file invalidates her opinion.	Krance had adequate factual basis and her partial file review suffices for admissible expert testimony.	No abuse of discretion; testimony admissible and relied on in decision.
Whether the evidence supports continued commitment as sexually dangerous.	J.M. contends lack of full-file review undermines diagnosis.	State presented sufficient evidence of disorder and dangerousness.	Yes; the record supports continued commitment.
Whether the trial court properly applied the standard of review for discharge appeals.	Argues misapplication of clearly erroneous standard due to expert credibility concerns.	Court properly deferred to trial court on credibility and weight of expert testimony.	Correct application of the standard; deference to trial court maintained.

In re J.T.N., 2011 ND 231 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2011) (modified clear-and-convincing standard for discharge; credibility determinations favored)
Matter of M.D., 2012 ND 261 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2012) (burden on State to prove continued dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Rubey, 2012 ND 133 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2012) (propensity toward sexual violence must be a nexus with the disorder indicating likelihood of danger)
G.R.H., 2006 ND 56 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2006) (requires nexus between disorder and dangerousness under Crane framework)
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (due process standard for serious difficulty controlling behavior)