State v. Vondal
795 N.W.2d 343
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Vondal was incarcerated until March 2008 for gross sexual imposition involving a 15-year-old.
- Administrative error led to him not being placed on probation upon release.
- State petitioned for civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual on September 4, 2009.
- May 14, 2010 commitment hearing featured testimony from Dr. Lisota (forensic psychologist) and Dr. Gilbertson (independent psychologist).
- Dr. Lisota opined Vondal met commitment criteria; Dr. Gilbertson found some prongs but said Vondal would not likely commit future acts and lacked serious difficulty controlling behavior.
- June 22, 2010 district court ordered commitment; on appeal, the court reversed and remanded for more explicit findings on serious difficulty controlling behavior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the future-danger finding is supported | State argues Vondal has paraphilic disorder and will reoffend. | Vondal contends lack of likelihood to reoffend and absence of serious difficulty controlling behavior. | Remand for explicit findings; not affirmed on this record. |
| Whether the court properly found serious difficulty controlling behavior | State relies on Lisota's view that past convictions show difficulty controlling behavior. | Vondal argues the court did not make a specific finding on this element. | Remand to make specific findings on serious difficulty controlling behavior. |
| Whether the district court provided sufficient findings under Rule 52(a) | State asserts findings support commitment. | Vondal asserts the findings are insufficiently specific and conclusory. | Remand for detailed, fact-based findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.M., 2006 ND 96, 713 N.W.2d 518 (ND 2006) (modified clearly erroneous standard for commitment orders)
- In re A.M., 2010 ND 163, 787 N.W.2d 752 (ND 2010) (establishes three-prong test and nexus to dangerousness)
- In re L.D.M., 2011 ND 25, 793 N.W.2d 778 (ND 2011) (requires a nexus between disorder and dangerousness and serious difficulty controlling behavior)
- In re Midgett, 2009 ND 106, 766 N.W.2d 717 (ND 2009) (Rule 52(a) requirements for specific findings)
- Coughlin Constr. Co. v. Nur-Tec Indus., Inc., 2008 ND 163, 755 N.W.2d 867 (ND 2008) (adequacy of evidentiary findings; multiple permissible views principle)