State v. Glaser, 2015 ND 31

Glaser pled guilty to indecent exposure, after initially pleading not guilty.
District court sentenced him to one year with nine months suspended and placed him on two years’ probation, and ordered registration as a sex offender.
Glaser challenged registration, arguing no prior sex-offense history, no mental abnormality or predatory conduct, and non-minor victim.
A statutory dispute arose over which definition of predatory conduct controls for registration: §12.1-32-15(1)(d) vs §25-03.3-01(9).
The district court applied §12.1-32-15(1)(d) and required registration, citing the stranger-directed predatory conduct standard.
Pre-sentencing, Dr. Ascano prepared a psychosexual risk assessment; the court considered it but was not required to grant relief from registration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which predatory conduct definition governs registration?	State: §12.1-32-15(1)(d) controls.	Glaser: §25-03.3-01(9) controls.	§12.1-32-15(1)(d) governs predatory conduct for registration.
Did the court abuse discretion by requiring registration despite discretionary factors and the risk assessment?	State: discretion exists but court could require registration.	Glaser: court should have considered risk assessment to excuse registration.	Court did not abuse discretion; could consider but was not required to deviate.
Was there obvious error under Rule 11(b)(3) for a lack of factual basis for the guilty plea?	State: no issue raised.	Glaser: insufficient factual basis for plea.	District court had a sufficient factual basis; no obvious Rule 11(b)(3) error.

State v. Wardner, 2006 ND 256 (ND 2006) (sentencing review standard; statute limits and permissible factors)
State v. Corman, 2009 ND 85 (ND 2009) (predatory conduct definition for registration contextualized)
Mackey v. State, 2012 ND 159 (ND 2012) (establishes factual-basis method for Rule 11(b)(3))
State v. Holbach, 2014 ND 14 (ND 2014) (statutory interpretation guidelines and application)