State v. G.L.D., 795 N.W.2d 346

G.L.D. was incarcerated for gross sexual imposition in 1996 and later petitioned for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3.
June 2007: G.L.D. was committed to the Department of Human Services for treatment.
October 2008: G.L.D. petitioned for discharge; Dr. Sullivan evaluated and recommended continued commitment.
Independent evaluation by Dr. Plaud (requested by G.L.D.) concluded G.L.D. was not sexually dangerous.
February 2010: Dr. Lisota evaluated and concluded G.L.D. remains sexually dangerous.
District court denied discharge, finding G.L.D. has paraphilia and antisocial personality disorder with serious difficulty controlling behavior; high actuarial risk scores and lack of progress in treatment support ongoing risk.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence	G.L.D. relies on Dr. Plaud to show no disorder or dangerousness	Lisota presents paraphilias, psychopathy, and lack of treatment progress to show danger	Not clearly erroneous; evidence supports continued danger
Whether the court properly applied the standard of review and deference to expert credibility	Court should reweigh conflicting expert testimony	Court correctly defers to credibility determinations	Modified clearly erroneous standard applied; court's credibility determinations given deference; decision not clearly erroneous

Matter of Midgett, 783 N.W.2d 27 (ND 2010) (burden of proof in discharge hearings must be clear and convincing)
Matter of G.R.H., 711 N.W.2d 587 (ND 2006) (defines sex offender SDI and due process standard)
Matter of Rush, 766 N.W.2d 720 (ND 2009) (review standard for SDI commitments)
Matter of Hehn, 745 N.W.2d 631 (ND 2008) (credit given to district court on credibility determinations)
Matter of A.M., 787 N.W.2d 752 (ND 2010) (limits on appellate reweighing of actuarial scores)