Opinion ID: 898213
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence to Sustain Order Committing Hehn as a Sexually Dangerous Individual

Text: [¶17] Civil commitments of sexually dangerous individuals are reviewed under a 'modified clearly erroneous' standard and will be affirmed unless the district court's 'order is induced by an erroneous view of the law, or we are firmly convinced the order is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.' Matter of Midgett, 2007 ND 198, ¶ 6, 742 N.W.2d 803 (quoting In re Anderson, 2007 ND 50, ¶ 21, 730 N.W.2d 570). [¶18] To commit a person as a sexually dangerous individual under chapter 25-03.3, N.D.C.C., the State must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person has [1] engaged in sexually predatory conduct and [2] who has a congenital or acquired condition that is manifested by a sexual disorder, a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction that [3] makes that individual likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct which constitute a danger to the physical or mental health or safety of others. N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(8). [¶19] The term likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct means the individual's propensity towards sexual violence is of such a degree as to pose a threat to others. Interest of M.B.K., 2002 ND 25, ¶ 18, 639 N.W.2d 473; Matter of G.R.H., 2006 ND 56, ¶ 16, 711 N.W.2d 587. In addition to the three requirements contained in the plain language of the statute and this Court's definition of likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct, the United States Supreme Court held that in order to satisfy substantive due process requirements, the individual must be shown to have serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 (2002). This additional consideration is necessary to distinguish a sexually dangerous individual from the dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case. Id. [¶20] In this case, Hehn challenges the sufficiency of evidence for the third prong of the above test, arguing the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his propensity towards sexual violence is of such a degree as to pose a threat to others, and thus he is, at best, a dangerous, but typical, recidivist, and commitment is inappropriate. [¶21] Hehn argues that because Dr. Belanger admitted the actuarial tests, RRASOR, Static-99, and MnSOST-R, do not support the conclusion that Hehn will likely re-offend, there is not clear and convincing evidence that he will likely re-offend. He further argues the district court was not presented with clear and convincing evidence that he would likely re-offend or that he posed a serious threat to others, because Dr. Sullivan would not administer the test based on her conclusion that the results would be spuriously low. The fact that these actuarial test scores did not give rise to scores showing a high risk of re-offending does not preclude the fact-finder from coming to an alternative conclusion. We have previously made clear that we will not engage in a 'contest over percentage points' when it comes to determining whether an individual meets the requirements for civil commitment. Interest of P.F., 2006 ND 82, ¶ 29, 712 N.W.2d 610 (Kapsner, J., concurring) (quoting In re M.B.K., 2002 ND 25, ¶ 18, 639 N.W.2d 473). The concurrence in Interest of P.F. noted the importance of independent judicial decision-making and the non-binding nature of actuarial test scores: Instead, we require a thorough examination done by experts to make the initial recommendation of whether an individual poses a threat to society. A certain test score on the RRASOR or Static-99 does not make an individual automatically committable. If we were to accept such logic, the judiciary would be without purpose. The court has the ultimate decision to determine whether the State has met its burden of producing clear and convincing evidence sufficient for commitment. A psychological test cannot act as a substitute for independent judicial review. Interest of P.F., at ¶ 29 (Kapsner, J., concurring) (internal citations omitted). The importance of independent judicial decision-making means the judge, rather than the test scores or the psychologists who create them, is the ultimate decision-maker. Id. Because this Court has refused to engage in contests of percentage points, the fact that the actuarial tests do not indicate Hehn is statistically likely to re-offend is of little consequence in determining whether there is clear and convincing evidence to support his conviction. [¶22] Hehn also argues that because Dr. Volk found Hehn was not likely to re-offend, based on the fact that Dr. Volk did not diagnose him with hebephilia in conjunction with psychopathy, and because the hebephilia diagnosis made by both Drs. Belanger and Sullivan relied upon community reports that were unfounded, . . . second or third hand accounts based on a tarred reputation in a small community, the State did not show Hehn was likely to engage in sexually predatory conduct. While Hehn couches this issue in terms of the sufficiency of the evidence, his arguments actually go to the weight the evidence was assigned. [¶23] Several of the individuals who made the reports or were referenced in the reports were called to testify at the commitment hearing. While there were some conflicts between the reports and the testimony, this Court has repeatedly held that [e]valuation of credibility where evidence is conflicting is solely a trial court function. Alumni Ass'n v. Hart Agency, Inc., 283 N.W.2d 119, 121 (N.D. 1979); see also Estate of Nelson, 553 N.W.2d 771, 774 (N.D. 1996) (The trial court was in the best position to weigh the conflicting evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses. If reasonable evidence in the record supports a trial court's findings, we will not retry the case and substitute findings we might have made for those of the trial court.) (internal citation omitted). Here, it could be reasonably inferred that the trial court found the testimony of the witnesses to the alleged reports credible, and gave the reports of Drs. Belanger and Sullivan more weight than that of Dr. Volk. It is not the function of this Court to second-guess the credibility determinations made by the trial court. [¶24] Hehn's prior GSI convictions constitute clear and convincing evidence that Hehn meets the first prong of the commitment statute, which requires that an individual has engaged in prior sexually predatory conduct. The second prong of the sexually dangerous individual statute requires clear and convincing evidence that Hehn suffers from a congenital or acquired condition that is manifested by a sexual disorder, a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction. The reports of Drs. Belanger and Sullivan provide evidence that Hehn is afflicted with both hebephilia, a sexual disorder, and psychopathy, a mental disorder. Thus, this prong of the statute is met. Based upon the interaction of these two diagnosis, Drs. Belanger and Sullivan concluded Hehn was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct that constitute a danger to the safety of others. Testimony by the others at the hearing, including Hehn's probation officer and the community members who filed complaints with Hehn's probation officer and police department, supported the determinations of Drs. Belanger and Sullivan. The trial court had evidence beyond the psychologists' reports and the statistical test scores to conclude Hehn was a sexually dangerous individual. There was clear and convincing evidence to support the district court's conclusion that Hehn is a sexually dangerous individual under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(8). [¶25] We affirm the district court order committing Hehn as a sexually dangerous individual. [¶26] Carol Ronning Kapsner Mary Muehlen Maring Daniel J. Crothers Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. I concur in the result. Dale V. Sandstrom