Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court held that a district court must grant a petition for release from lifetime supervision when the statutory requirements in NRS 176.0931(3) are satisfied. Although the district court may determine whether those requirements have been met, it may not deny release based on other considerations, such as victim-impact testimony. The court reversed and remanded because the district court failed to make findings concerning the statutory requirements, including the qualifications and opinion of the psychosexual evaluator.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether NRS 176.0931(3) gives a district court discretion to deny a petition for release from lifetime supervision even when the petitioner satisfies the statute's requirements.
- Whether the district court properly denied Goudge's petition without making findings concerning each statutory requirement, including the qualification and opinion of the psychosexual evaluator.
Holdings
- Under NRS 176.0931(3), the district court has discretion to determine whether a petitioner has met the statutory requirements, but it lacks discretion to deny release if those requirements are met because the statute provides that the court "shall grant" the petition.
- When resolving a petition for release from lifetime supervision, the district court must make factual findings in the record concerning each requirement of NRS 176.0931(3) sufficient to support its ultimate conclusions.
- For NRS 176.0931(3)(c), the district court must determine whether the evaluator is professionally qualified and whether the evaluator sufficiently supports the opinion that the petitioner is not likely to pose a threat to others if released. Victim testimony alone is not a statutory factor under subsection (3)(c).
Key quotations
“Based on the plain language of this statute, we conclude that the district court has discretion to determine whether a petitioner has met the statutory requirements but lacks discretion to deny a petition for release from lifetime supervision if that court finds the statutory requirements were met.” (550)
“The use of the word “shall” in the statute divests the district court of judicial discretion.” (553)
“If the court finds that the statutory expert is qualified and that the expert’s opinion is sufficiently supported, then the third requirement has been satisfied.” (555)
Factual background
Goudge pleaded guilty in 2000 to attempted lewdness with a child under fourteen and was sentenced to probation followed by lifetime supervision. In 2011, after more than ten years without a conviction and after completing probation, he petitioned for release, submitting evidence that he had complied with supervision requirements and had been assessed as presenting a low risk of sexual recidivism. At the hearing, victims expressed continuing trauma and opposition to release. The district court denied the petition based on the crime's severity and victim concerns without evaluating the statutory requirements or the submitted psychosexual evaluation.
Procedural history
Goudge pleaded guilty to attempted lewdness with a child under fourteen and received a sentence including lifetime supervision. After completing probation and satisfying the statutory period and other asserted requirements, he petitioned for release under NRS 176.0931(3). The district court denied the petition based on the severity of the crime and victim concerns without determining whether Goudge met the statutory requirements. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The district court must conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion, make findings concerning each requirement of NRS 176.0931(3), evaluate the psychosexual evaluator's qualifications and the sufficiency of the evaluator's opinion, and grant release if all statutory requirements are satisfied.