Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed an order committing D.V.A. as a sexually dangerous individual. The court held that expert testimony based on records, interviews, and risk-assessment evaluations was admissible under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13 and N.D.R.Ev. 703. It also held that the State was not required to prove D.V.A. did not have mental retardation and concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported the commitment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court improperly relied on expert testimony because the psychologists' opinions were based in part on allegedly inadmissible hearsay.
- Whether the State failed to meet its burden of proving that D.V.A. was a sexually dangerous individual because it did not present evidence that he did not have mental retardation.
Holdings
- The district court did not err by relying on the psychologists' testimony regarding whether D.V.A. was a sexually dangerous individual because the testimony and reports of experts who conducted examinations were admissible under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13, and the underlying information was of a type reasonably relied upon by psychologists under N.D.R.Ev. 703.
- The State was not required to establish that D.V.A. did not have mental retardation. Mental retardation cannot itself constitute the qualifying sexual, personality, or other mental disorder or dysfunction for commitment under chapter 25-03.3, but the statute does not otherwise prohibit commitment of a person with mental retardation.
Key quotations
“we affirm a trial court’s order of committal ‘unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law or if we are firmly convinced it is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.’” (¶ 7)
“the weakness or non-existence of a basis for an expert’s opinion goes to his credibility, and not necessarily to the admissibility of the opinion evidence.” (¶ 9)
Factual background
D.V.A. pleaded guilty to a class A felony for gross sexual imposition in 1996. Before his release from prison, two psychologists evaluated him using records, interviews, diagnoses, and several actuarial risk-assessment instruments. Both psychologists diagnosed pedophilia, sexual sadism, and antisocial personality disorder, and testified that he was likely to engage in further sexually predatory conduct if not committed.
Procedural history
After D.V.A. pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition and was scheduled for release from prison, the State petitioned for his commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Following a preliminary hearing establishing probable cause, the district court held a commitment hearing at which two psychologists testified and ordered D.V.A. committed to the custody of the executive director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services. D.V.A. appealed, challenging the admissibility of the expert testimony and the State's proof concerning mental retardation.