Schumacker v. Schumacker
2011 ND 75
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Wolff was found to be a sexually dangerous individual in April 2006 and committed to the Department of Human Services.
- In May 2010 Wolff petitioned for discharge and requested a hearing.
- The State relied on Dr. Sullivan’s evaluation (risk of re-offending; antisocial personality disorder) and recommended continued commitment.
- Wolff obtained an independent evaluation from Dr. Riedel, who recommended discharge and found Wolff unlikely to re-offend if released.
- A discharge hearing was held on July 20, 2010; the trial court issued findings August 9, 2010, denying discharge.
- This Court reviews the denial of discharge under a modified clearly erroneous standard and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the State prove serious difficulty controlling behavior by clear and convincing evidence? | Wolff has antisocial personality disorder with treatment nonprogress and rule violations. | Riedel disputes the nexus; Wolff lacks serious difficulty controlling behavior. | Yes; sufficient evidence supports serious difficulty controlling behavior. |
| Must there be a nexus between disorder and future dangerousness for discharge denial? | Disorder plus lack of control suffices to show nexus. | Disorder alone should not prove dangerousness; based on individual evidence. | Nexus proven; disorder linked to lack of control; supports denial. |
| Is the trial court entitled to deference on credibility of expert testimony? | Court properly credited Dr. Sullivan over Dr. Riedel. | Court erred in weighing Dr. Riedel's testimony too lightly. | Yes; credibility determinations given deference; supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whelan v. A.O., 793 N.W.2d 471 (2011 ND) (deference to trial court's credibility determinations; standard of review)
- Matter of Midgett, 766 N.W.2d 717 (2009 ND) (clear and convincing standard; nexus of disorder and dangerousness)
- Interest of J.M., 713 N.W.2d 518 (2006 ND) (nexus between disorder and dangerousness; high-level standard)
- Crane, Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (constitution requires proof of serious difficulty in controlling behavior)
- Matter of Hanenberg, 777 N.W.2d 62 (2010 ND) (credibility evaluation in conflicting expert testimony)
- Matter of A.M., 787 N.W.2d 752 (2010 ND) (weight of evidence; permissible view of evidence)
- R.A.S., 766 N.W.2d 712 (2009 ND) (disorder and risk assessment considerations for ongoing commitment)