State v. Boespflug
2011 ND 30
| N.D. | 2011Background
- In 2004, L.D.M. was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual, later affirmed on appeal in 2005.
- In December 2008, L.D.M. petitioned for discharge to review his status as sexually dangerous.
- In February 2009, State expert Dr. Sullivan recommended continued commitment based on likelihood of future predatory conduct.
- In October 2009, independent expert Dr. Benson also opined L.D.M. remained sexually dangerous and likely to re-offend.
- A March 23, 2010 discharge hearing was held; the court denied discharge and kept L.D.M. in DHS care, custody, and control.
- The court’s order relied on the experts’ conclusions but did not provide specific findings of fact supporting the decision; L.D.M. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove remaining sexually dangerous | State contends both experts’ findings show ongoing danger. | L.D.M. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the lack of explicit factual findings. | Reversed and remanded for sufficient findings of fact. |
| Compliance with Rule 52(a) requiring explicit findings | State relies on expert testimony to establish it remained dangerous. | L.D.M. argues the court failed to state the factual basis for its conclusion. | Reversed and remanded for specific, on-the-record findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Midgett, 783 N.W.2d 27 (ND 2010) (modified clearly erroneous standard; discharge burden requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Interest of Maedche, 788 N.W.2d 331 (ND 2010) (requires nexus between disorder and dangerousness; evidence of serious difficulty controlling behavior)
- Interest of L.D.M., 704 N.W.2d 838 (ND 2005) (affirmed prior commitment; precedent for expert-supported ongoing danger)