Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the commitment of L.D.M. as a sexually dangerous individual. The court held that the statutory requirement for opinions from two experts was satisfied even though the experts were employed by the same entities and had conferred, because each independently evaluated the evidence and reached his or her own conclusion. The court also held that the trial court could consider relevant expert testimony presented by the respondent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13 requires two experts to be employed by different employers and to reach their opinions without conferring with one another.
- Whether the trial court may rely on the testimony or opinion of an expert called by the respondent when determining whether the statutory commitment elements have been established.
- Whether the commitment order was supported by clear and convincing evidence under the modified clearly erroneous standard.
Holdings
- N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13 requires two experts to independently reach their own conclusions regarding the respondent's disorder and likelihood of further sexually predatory conduct, but it does not require that the experts have different employers or prohibit them from conferring during the evaluation process.
- The trial court may consider relevant testimony from any qualified expert, including an expert called by the respondent, when evaluating the totality of the evidence in a sexually dangerous individual commitment proceeding.
- The commitment order was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not clearly erroneous.
Key quotations
“This Court’s statement in M.B.K. that the State must produce “two experts to independently establish two elements” means each expert must come to his own conclusion.” (¶ 5)
“The court, in its discretion, can consider the relevant testimony of any qualified expert at the trial, and, in considering the totality of the evidence, the court can rely on the testimony of an expert witness called by the defendant.” (¶ 7)
Factual background
L.D.M. was convicted of gross sexual imposition and sentenced to ten years in prison. Before his release, the State sought his commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Two psychologists evaluated him for the State, and a third psychologist evaluated him at L.D.M.'s request; all three concluded that he had antisocial personality disorder making him likely to commit further sexually predatory acts.
Procedural history
After L.D.M. was convicted of gross sexual imposition and before his release from prison, the State petitioned for civil commitment under North Dakota Century Code chapter 25-03.3. Following a commitment hearing at which the State presented two psychologists and L.D.M. presented an additional expert, the trial court ordered commitment. L.D.M. appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, arguing that the State had not presented two independent expert opinions as required by N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13.