Wamstad v. Mangelsen, 843 N.W.2d 8

Background

Respondent Sandy Mangelsen, with prior convictions for sexual contact with minors (South Dakota, 2005) and gross sexual imposition (North Dakota, 2007), faced a State petition to civilly commit him as a "sexually dangerous individual" before his release from incarceration.
Additional incidents and convictions include failure to register as a sex offender, making false statements to law enforcement, probation revocations, and disciplinary infractions while incarcerated.
Two experts testified: Dr. Lisota (State) diagnosed Paraphilia NOS, Antisocial Personality Disorder, polysubstance dependence, and borderline intellectual functioning; opined Mangelsen has serious difficulty controlling behavior. Dr. Ertelt (defense) diagnosed ADHD, alcohol dependence, impulse control disorder, adult antisocial behavior, and borderline intellectual functioning; opined Mangelsen is like a typical recidivist.
The district court found Dr. Lisota more credible, concluded Mangelsen meets the four statutory elements for commitment under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3, and ordered commitment to the Department of Human Services.
On appeal Mangelsen argued the State failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the constitutionally required fourth element — that he has serious difficulty controlling his sexual behavior — and contended his prior offenses were "low level."

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State proved all statutory elements for civil commitment by clear and convincing evidence	State: prior sexually predatory convictions, expert opinion, and institutional/probation misconduct satisfy all elements	Mangelsen: State failed to prove the fourth element (serious difficulty controlling sexual behavior) by clear and convincing evidence	Held: Affirmed — court found all elements proven by clear and convincing evidence
Whether the fourth element must be evidenced by sexual conduct post-conviction	State: fourth element requires evidence of serious difficulty controlling behavior, not necessarily sexual conduct	Mangelsen: argued continued difficulty must be shown by sexual acts specifically	Held: Court rejected requirement that conduct be sexual in nature; nonsexual impulsive conduct can support the fourth element
Whether trial court erred in relying on one expert over another	State: trial court may credit one expert and weigh testimony; credibility determinations are for the trier of fact	Mangelsen: urged that defense expert showed no statutory basis for commitment	Held: No error — appellate court defers to district court credibility and will not reweigh expert testimony
Whether "low level" nature of prior offenses precludes commitment	Mangelsen: "low level" prior offenses argue against designation as sexually dangerous	State: statute broadly defines sexually predatory conduct; prior convictions met statutory triggers	Held: Court: statutory definition governs; policy arguments about scope are for the legislature, not the judiciary

Key Cases Cited

Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (Constitution requires proof of serious difficulty controlling behavior to civilly commit sexual predators)
In re Hehn, 838 N.W.2d 469 (N.D. 2013) (elements required for sexually dangerous individual commitment)
In re Whitetail, 835 N.W.2d 827 (N.D. 2013) (clear-and-convincing standard and statutory elements)
In re Voisine, 777 N.W.2d 908 (N.D. 2010) (discussion of Crane and statutory requirements)
In re Johnson, 835 N.W.2d 806 (N.D. 2013) (appellate standard of review for commitment orders)
In re J.M., 826 N.W.2d 315 (N.D. 2013) (deference to trial court on expert credibility)
In re J.T.N., 807 N.W.2d 570 (N.D. 2011) (appellate courts will not reweigh expert testimony)
In re Wolff, 796 N.W.2d 644 (N.D. 2011) (clarifying conduct demonstrating lack of control need not be sexual in nature)