Summary
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed an order extending A.M.'s involuntary commitment to the North Dakota State Hospital as a sexually dangerous individual. The court held that the State established by clear and convincing evidence that A.M. had a qualifying sexual disorder, was likely to engage in further sexually predatory conduct, and had serious difficulty controlling his behavior.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that A.M. had a congenital or acquired condition manifested by a sexual disorder.
- Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that A.M. was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct constituting a danger to others.
- Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that A.M. had serious difficulty controlling his behavior as required by substantive due process.
Holdings
- The district court did not clearly err in finding that A.M. continued to suffer from paraphilia not otherwise specified and fetishism, satisfying the sexual-disorder component of the commitment statute.
- The district court did not clearly err in finding that A.M. was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct constituting a danger to the physical or mental health or safety of others.
- The district court did not clearly err in finding that A.M. had serious difficulty controlling his behavior.
Key quotations
“We review civil commitments of sexually dangerous individuals under a modified clearly erroneous standard.” (at 757)
“We hold the district court's finding that A.M. "suffer[s] from the sexual disorders of paraphilia NOS and fetishism," and he therefore has a congenital or acquired condition manifested by a sexual disorder, is not clearly erroneous.” (at 757)
“We hold the district court's finding that A.M. has serious difficulty controlling his behavior is not clearly erroneous.” (at 760)
Factual background
A.M. was adjudicated delinquent in 1997 for multiple counts of gross sexual imposition committed when he was thirteen to fifteen years old, and he was committed to the State Hospital in 1999 as a sexually dangerous individual. At the 2009 annual review, the State's psychologist testified that A.M. continued to suffer from fetishism and paraphilia not otherwise specified involving nonconsent, and that he engaged in stalking-like observation, sexual fantasies, and masturbation involving female staff. An independent psychologist disputed the diagnoses and opined that A.M. was not presently disordered, unlikely to reoffend, and able to control his behavior. The district court credited the State's evidence and continued the commitment.
Procedural history
A.M. was initially committed in 1999 after the State petitioned for commitment before his scheduled release from a youth correctional center. Following a December 2009 annual review hearing, the district court found that A.M. remained a sexually dangerous individual and ordered that he remain committed. A.M. appealed, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.