State v. Nakvinda, 2011 ND 217

In 2006, Hehn was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3, affirmed on review.
In June 2010, Hehn petitioned for release from civil commitment; a district court held a hearing on December 6, 2010, with testimony from both sides' experts.
State's expert Dr. Sullivan opined Hehn has borderline personality disorder with antisocial features and paraphilia, has not completed treatment, and remains likely to reoffend if released.
Independent evaluator Dr. Riedel diagnosed major depression and mixed personality disorder, but opined Hehn can control urges and has a low likelihood of reoffending.
The district court denied discharge, stating clear and convincing evidence showed Hehn remains a sexual offender likely to engage in future sexually predatory conduct.
On appeal, the supreme court reversed and remanded for further findings due to insufficient, detailed factual findings supporting the continued commitment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the district court's findings sufficient for continued commitment?	Hehn argues findings were vague and failed to specify supporting acts/history.	State contends the evidence, especially Dr. Sullivan's testimony, supports continued commitment.	No; findings were insufficient for appellate review; remand for detailed, independent factual findings.
Did the district court adequately address Hehn's ability to control his behavior as required by due process?	Hehn contends the court did not address serious difficulty controlling behavior.	State relies on expert opinions to support ongoing risk and lack of control.	Court must make explicit findings on control; failure requires reversal and remand.

Matter of R.A.S., 756 N.W.2d 771 (2008 ND) (detailed findings required in commitment decisions)
Matter of Midgett, 766 N.W.2d 717 (2009 ND) (emphasizes need for independent judicial findings and credibility determinations)
Interest of Vondal, 795 N.W.2d 343 (2011 ND) (high need for detailed findings in commitment decisions)
Interest of L.D.M., 793 N.W.2d 778 (2011 ND) (detailed findings required; credibility matters)
Matter of E.W.F., 751 N.W.2d 686 (2008 ND) (due process requires showing serious difficulty controlling behavior)
Crane v. Kansas, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (requires proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior for civil commitment)
Matter of G.L.D., 795 N.W.2d 346 (2011 ND) (modified clearly erroneous standard for discharge orders)
Matter of T.O., 793 N.W.2d 204 (2011 ND) (emphasizes detailed evidentiary findings in commitment reviews)
Voisine, 777 N.W.2d 908 (2010 ND) (illustrates need for independent judicial evaluation)