Suhr v. J.M., 826 N.W.2d 315

J.M. was committed in 2005 as a sexually dangerous individual after a 2001 gross sexual imposition conviction involving a nine-year-old victim.
Past commitment orders continued his status in 2007, 2009, and 2010; we summarily affirmed the 2010 order.
In 2011, J.M. petitioned for discharge and the district court held an evidentiary hearing.
State expert Jennifer France, Psy.D., testified she reviewed chart information and prior evaluations but did not review the entire 2,000-page file.
J.M. moved to strike France’s testimony and report on grounds of incomplete file review and reliance on a summary, but the court denied the motion.
The district court found clear and convincing evidence that J.M. remains a sexually dangerous individual, adopting the experts’ diagnoses and linking the disorder to dangerousness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the district court’s denial of striking France’s testimony an abuse of discretion?	JM argues incompleteness of file review tainted opinion.	State contends weight, not admissibility, concerns arise from incomplete review.	No abuse; weight goes to credibility.
Did the State prove by clear and convincing evidence that JM remains sexually dangerous?	JM challenges nexus between disorder and dangerousness.	State shows disorder plus likelihood of future predatory conduct.	Yes; evidence supports continued commitment.

In re J.T.N., 2011 ND 231 (ND 2011) (establishes modified clear-and-convincing standard and deference to trial credibility findings)
Matter of M.D., 2012 ND 261 (ND 2012) (requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of ongoing dangerousness)
G.R.H., 2006 ND 56 (ND 2006) (Crane framework; nexus between disorder and dangerousness respected)
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2002) (due process; serious difficulty controlling behavior required)
Perius v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 ND 80 (ND 2010) (basis for expert opinion admissibility when relying on non-admissible facts)