State v. Christian, 2011 ND 56

Vondal was imprisoned for gross sexual imposition of a 15-year-old and released in March 2008 (no probation due to an administrative error).
The State filed a petition on September 4, 2009 seeking civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual.
A 2010 commitment hearing included testimony from Dr. Lisota (state hospital forensic psychologist) and Dr. Gilbertson (independent forensics psychologist).
Dr. Lisota determined Vondal met the criteria for commitment; Dr. Gilbertson found he had not demonstrated a likelihood of future predatory acts and did not have a serious difficulty controlling behavior.
On June 22, 2010 the district court ordered civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual.
Vondal appeals, and this Court reverses and remands for explicit findings on whether he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the record proves future predatory acts by clear and convincing evidence	Lisota supports likelihood; Gilbertson offers opposing view	Gilbertson contends no likelihood of future predatory conduct	Evidence supported likelihood of future acts
Whether Vondal has serious difficulty controlling his behavior	Record shows difficulty controlling behavior per Lisota	Gilbertson did not find serious difficulty	Remand for explicit 52(a) findings on serious difficulty controlling behavior

In re J.M., 713 N.W.2d 518 (N.D. 2006) (set forth evidentiary standard for commitment as sexually dangerous)
In re A.M., 787 N.W.2d 752 (N.D. 2010) (establishes required nexus between disorder and dangerousness)
In re L.D.M., 2011 ND 25 (N.D.) (requires explicit factual findings under Rule 52(a))
In re Midgett, 766 N.W.2d 717 (N.D. 2009) (necessity of specific, stated findings supporting ultimate conclusions)