Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Jeffrey Keith Wolff’s petition for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported a finding that Wolff had serious difficulty controlling his behavior and that his antisocial personality disorder was connected to his future dangerousness. The court also clarified that the conduct demonstrating serious difficulty controlling behavior need not be sexual in nature.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Wolff remained a sexually dangerous individual and had serious difficulty controlling his behavior.
- Whether evidence of serious difficulty controlling behavior must be sexual in nature to satisfy substantive due process and support continued civil commitment.
- Whether the district court's finding of a nexus between Wolff's antisocial personality disorder and his lack of behavioral control was clearly erroneous.
Holdings
- The Constitution and North Dakota law do not require the conduct evidencing a committed individual's serious difficulty controlling behavior to be sexual in nature.
- The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Wolff had serious difficulty controlling his behavior, that his antisocial personality disorder was connected to his future dangerousness, and that he remained a sexually dangerous individual; the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous.
Key quotations
“We construe the definition of a sexually dangerous individual to mean that proof of a nexus between the requisite disorder and dangerousness encompasses proof that the disorder involves serious difficulty in controlling behavior and suffices to distinguish a dangerous sexual offender whose disorder subjects him to civil commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist in the ordinary criminal case.” (¶ 7)
“We affirm the trial court’s order denying Wolff’s petition for discharge and continuing his commitment as a sexually dangerous individual.” (¶ 15)
Factual background
Wolff had been committed as a sexually dangerous individual after a 2006 finding that he met the statutory criteria. At the 2010 discharge hearing, one psychologist testified that Wolff remained likely to engage in sexually predatory conduct and had serious difficulty controlling his behavior, while an independent psychologist opined that he was unlikely to reoffend if released. The district court relied primarily on evidence of Wolff's inappropriate conduct toward hospital staff, treatment-rule violations, minimal progress in sex-offender treatment, lack of empathy, substance abuse, and risk-assessment results.
Procedural history
In April 2006, the district court found Wolff to be a sexually dangerous individual and committed him to the care, custody, and control of the executive director of the Department of Human Services. In May 2010, Wolff petitioned for discharge and obtained an independent psychological evaluation. After a July 20, 2010 discharge hearing at which two experts gave conflicting testimony, the district court found that the State had proved by clear and convincing evidence that Wolff remained a sexually dangerous individual and denied discharge on August 9, 2010. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.