Court Opinion

ID: 9513920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:42:20.352459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:06.169464
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice.
[¶ 1] Jamal Anderson appeals from a district court judgment ordering his involuntary commitment to the care and custody of the executive director of the Department of Human Services as a sexually dangerous individual. Concluding that good cause existed for delaying the commitment hearing, that no right to a jury trial exists in these proceedings, and that clear and convincing evidence exists to prove Anderson is a sexually dangerous individual, we affirm.
*572I
[¶ 2] On September 21, 2005, while Anderson was in the North Dakota State Penitentiary and about to complete his five-year sentence for drug-related convictions, the State petitioned for his commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Anderson’s anticipated release date from prison was October 23, 2005.
[¶ 3] In 1998, Anderson was charged with gross sexual imposition; however, he was convicted of sexual assault as the result of a plea agreement. This charge resulted from Anderson, then 17 years old, having “at least offensive sexual contact with a female who was 15 years old at the time, if not sexual intercourse accomplished by threat or force.” In 2000, Anderson was convicted of corrupting a minor for having sex with a 16-year-old female when he was 20 years old.
[¶ 4] On October 4, 2005, the district court found probable cause for the commitment of Anderson as a sexually dangerous individual and ordered a psychological evaluation of him. The district court scheduled the commitment hearing for November 7, 2005. On November 3, 2005, the State moved for a continuance because of “case load at the particular unit conducting these examinations.... Petitioner requests the commitment proceeding be rescheduled to a date after the 2nd of December 2005.” The district court continued the commitment hearing to December 21, 2005.
[¶ 5] On December 6, 2005, Anderson moved to dismiss the commitment petition. He contended that the 60-day statutory period that begins after the finding of probable cause had run. The district court denied his motion. Psychologists at the North Dakota State Hospital submitted their evaluations on December 19, 2005. On December 20, 2005, Anderson moved for a continuance to obtain an independent evaluation and prepare for the commitment hearing. The district court granted the motion for the continuance and rescheduled the commitment hearing to February 8, 2006. Anderson hired Dr. Robert Gulkin, a clinical psychologist, to conduct the independent evaluation. He filed his report on January 31, 2006. At the close of the commitment hearing, the district court found Anderson to be a sexually dangerous individual and committed him to the care and custody of the executive director of the Department of Human Services. There he would receive inpatient sex offender treatment for an indefinite term. Anderson appeals.
[¶ 6] The district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-02. Anderson’s appeal is timely under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-19. This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, §§ 2 and 6, and N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-19.
II
[¶ 7] Anderson argues that the State’s petition for commitment should have been dismissed for an excessive delay between the finding of probable cause and the commitment hearing.
[¶ 8] Section 25-03.3-13, N.D.C.C., provides, in part: “Within sixty days after the finding of probable cause, the court shall conduct a commitment proceeding to determine whether the respondent is a sexually dangerous individual. The court may extend the time for good cause.”
[¶ 9] About a month after the district court found probable cause for Anderson’s commitment, the State notified Anderson’s former counsel by e-mail that a continuance would be required because the State Hospital could not complete the psychiatric evaluation in time for the commitment hearing. Anderson’s former counsel re*573plied that he would not oppose the motion. On November 3, 2005, the State filed a request for a continuance on that ground. On November 4, 2005, the district court granted the motion and rescheduled the date of the commitment hearing to December 21, 2005 — 78 days after the finding of probable cause, or 18 days beyond the statutory deadline, without objection from Anderson at that time. On December 6, 2005, Anderson’s counsel moved to dismiss the commitment petition, claiming that Anderson had been incarcerated for over 60 days in violation of section 25-03.3-13, N.D.C.C. In response to his motion to dismiss, the State presented an affidavit from the State Hospital regarding its plan for evaluating Anderson:
Dr. Joseph Belanger has completed three interviews with Jamal this week (5-9 December 2005), and plans to complete the [fourth interview] on the 9th of December 2005.
Dr. Rosalie Etherington’s interviews of Mr. Anderson are planned for this coming week (12-16 December 2005).
It is anticipated that the report for Mr. Jamal Anderson’s review will be completed and delivered to the parties and filed with the Court by Friday the 16th of December 2005.
Prior to the doctors interviewing Mr. Anderson, Dr. Etherington and support staff constructed a database of the documents. That database was reviewed by the doctors to prepare for their interviews of Mr. Jamal Anderson. Along with that, extensive review of the past history documents has been completed by both Dr. Etherington and Dr. Belan-ger. Dr. Belanger has further independently competed a second supplementary database after independent review of the document set.
The district court denied Anderson’s motion for dismissal, finding that “[Reasonable attempts have been made by the State to secure an evaluation.”
[¶ 10] After receiving the two State Hospital evaluations on December 19, 2005, Anderson found them to be “not advantageous” to him, and he moved for a continuance to obtain an independent evaluation. In his motion, Anderson stated that he “now has the opportunity to have an independent evaluation”; however, Anderson could have requested such an evaluation as early as September 2005, when the State petitioned for his commitment and notified him of his rights in these proceedings. By waiting until December 20, 2005 — the day before the commitment hearing — to request an independent evaluation, Anderson added another 57 days to his detention. The commitment hearing was held on February 8 and 15, 2006.
[¶ 11] “The evaluation was completed and the case was ready to proceed to a hearing within the first extension when [Anderson] requested an independent evaluation and concomitant extension of time. The court granted [Anderson]’s request. [Anderson] cannot now complain about the delay occasioned by his own request for an independent evaluation.” See In re M.D., 1999 ND 160, ¶¶ 17, 18, 598 N.W.2d 799 (allowing a six-month delay between the finding of probable cause and the commitment hearing). Absent Anderson’s motion for a continuance to obtain an independent evaluation, the commitment hearing would have been delayed only 18 days beyond the statutory deadline. Like M.D., Anderson caused the bulk of the delay. Furthermore, by not opposing the State’s motion for a continuance, Anderson’s former counsel essentially eliminated the need for a hearing on the matter of good cause for the extension. Nonetheless, the district court issued a ruling that followed our line of cases delimiting the boundaries of such extensions.
*574[¶ 12] The district court did not err in finding good cause for the extension.
Ill
[¶ 13] Anderson argues, for the first time on appeal, that he was denied his right to a trial by jury. Anderson asks for reversal of the judgment of commitment as a matter of law.
[¶ 14] “Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by jury....” N.D.R.Civ.P. 38(b) (emphasis added). “The failure of a party to serve and file a demand as required by'this rule constitutes a waiver by the party of trial by jury-” N.D.R.Civ.P. 38(e). “[Notwithstanding the failure of a party to demand a jury in an action in which such a demand might have been made of right, the court in its discretion upon motion may order a trial by a jury of any or all issues.” N.D.R.Civ.P. 39(b) (emphasis added). “Of course, the opposite is true with regard to waiver of the right to a jury trial in criminal proceedings; we never imply waiver in a criminal case.” First Western Bank of Minot v. Wickman, 500 N.W.2d 896, 898 n. 4 (N.D.1993) (“Under Rule 23, N.D.R.Crim.P., a defendant is guaranteed a jury trial without saying a word. The right is so important in a criminal context that the defendant need not demand it.”).
[¶ 15] “The legislature has clearly expressed its intent to create a civil, rather than criminal, procedure in N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3.” In re M.D., 1999 ND 160, ¶ 27, 598 N.W.2d 799. For the civil commitment proceedings under this chapter, the legislature specifically excluded the right to a jury trial. See N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13 (“Any proceeding pursuant to this chapter must be tried to the court and not a jury.”).
[¶ 16] Article I, section 13, of the Constitution of the State of North Dakota provides:
The right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate. A person accused of a crime for which he may be confined for a period of more than one year has the right of trial by a jury of twelve. The legislative assembly may determine the size of the jury for all other cases, provided that the jury consists of at least six members. All verdicts must be unanimous.
It is well-established, however, that:
[t]his provision of our constitution that right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate neither enlarges nor restricts that right but merely preserves it as it existed at the time of the adoption of our constitution. In re R.Y., 189 N.W.2d 644, 651 (N.D.1971). It preserves the right of trial by jury for all cases in which it could have been demanded as a matter of right at common law. Id.
Peters-Riemers v. Riemers, 2002 ND 72, ¶ 5, 644 N.W.2d 197; accord Daley v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 355 N.W.2d 812, 814-15 (N.D.1984); City of Bismarck v. Altevogt, 353 N.W.2d 760, 764 (N.D.1984); Union State Bank v. Miller, 335 N.W.2d 807, 808 (N.D.1983). Therefore, whether our state constitution provides the right to a jury trial for persons subject to commitment proceedings depends on whether a statutory right to jury trial in this context existed at the time our constitution was adopted. See Interest of R.Z., 415 N.W.2d 486, 488 n. 1 (N.D.1987) (holding that R.Z. had no constitutional right to jury trial under article I, § 13, for proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.1, which governs commitment of the mentally ill or chemically dependent). “The sexually dangerous individual commitment provisions have been placed in Title 25 of the Century Code, entitled ‘Mental and Physical Illness or Disability.’ The provisions are close in proximity and content to the *575provisions for civil commitment of the mentally ill or chemically dependent, contained in N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.1.” In re M.D., 1999 ND 160, ¶ 27, 598 N.W.2d 799.
[¶ 17] Anderson contends that the right to a jury in these proceedings existed at the time of the adoption of our state constitution in 1889, because persons of unsound mind, defined as “idiots, lunatics, and imbeciles” in the territorial laws of 1887 could “appeal to the district court and demand therein an investigation before a jury.”
[¶ 18] The Laws of the Dakota Territory reflect that the “jury” contemplated at that time was not a jury of one’s peers, but a panel of experts convened solely to review the probate judge’s commitment order. See 1877 Compiled Laws of the Territory of Dakota, Civil Code § 2655(3) (“After the order is granted the person alleged to be of unsound mind ... may appeal to the district court and demand therein investigation before a jury, which must be substantially, in all respects, conducted as under an inquisition of lunacy.”). In an “inquisition of lunacy,” as cross-referenced in section 2655(3) to article 2, chapter 22, of the political code, a commission of three persons, including the probate judge, a physician, and an attorney, reviews the commitment order. 1877 Compiled Laws of the Territory of Dakota, Political Code §§ 2179, 2193.
[¶ 19] The involuntary civil commitment provisions of N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3 create a statutory proceeding that was unknown at the time our constitution was adopted in 1889. Consequently, there is no right under article I, § 13, to a jury trial in proceedings under this chapter.
IV
[¶ 20] Anderson argues that the State failed in its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a sexually dangerous individual.
[¶ 21] We apply a “modified clearly erroneous” standard of review for appeals from civil commitments of sexually dangerous individuals under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3. In re J.M., 2006 ND 96, ¶ 11, 713 N.W.2d 518. “We will affirm a district court’s commitment order unless the 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.” In re G.R.H., 2006 ND 56, ¶ 8, 711 N.W.2d 587.
[¶ 22] Chapter 25-03.3, N.D.C.C., authorizes the involuntary civil commitment of a person found to be a “sexually dangerous individual.” Section 25-03.3-01(8), N.D.C.C., which defines that term, provides a three-part test:
(1) the individual has engaged in sexually predatory conduct;
(2) the individual has a congenital or acquired condition that is manifested by a sexual disorder, a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction; and
(3) the disorder makes the 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.
In re G.R.H., 2006 ND 56, ¶ 6, 711 N.W.2d 587. Furthermore:
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.
*576Id. at ¶ 18; accord Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413, 122 S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002) (reviewing what constitutes a “sexually violent predator” under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act).
A
[¶ 23] The first element for commitment is that the individual has engaged in sexually predatory conduct. N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(8); In re G.R.H., 2006 ND 56, ¶ 6, 711 N.W.2d 587.
[¶ 24] Section 25-03.3-01(9), N.D.C.C., defines “sexually predatory conduct,” in part, as:
a. Engaging or attempting to engage in a sexual act or sexual contact with another individual, or causing or attempting to cause another individual to engage in a sexual act or sexual contact, if:
(1) The victim is compelled to submit by force or by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping directed toward the victim or any human being, or the victim is compelled to submit by any threat that would render an individual of reasonable firmness incapable of resisting;
(7) The victim is a minor and the actor is an adult; or
b. Engaging in or attempting to engage in sexual contact with another individual or causing or attempting to cause another individual to have sexual contact, if:
(1) The actor knows or should have known that the contact is offensive to the victim....
N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(9)(a)(1), (7) and (b)(1).
[¶ 25] According to the State’s petition for commitment, Anderson’s 1998 class B misdemeanor sexual assault conviction resulted from Anderson, then 17 years old, having “at least offensive sexual contact ... accomplished by threat or force” with a 15-year-old female. Anderson was charged with gross sexual imposition, but pled guilty to the reduced charge of sexual assault — despite his contention that the girl initiated the acts and consented throughout.
[¶ 26] Two police officers who were conducting surveillance of the hotel room as part of a drug investigation of Anderson in 1998 testified at the commitment hearing and corroborated the State’s use of the phrase “by threat or force” to describe Anderson’s conduct. The record contains a transcript of the 1998 interview with Anderson’s victim and reveals that Anderson and another male forced her to have oral sex and intercourse. The victim was locked in a bathroom, the light was shut off, her clothes were ripped off, and she was found by police outside the hotel room crying. She also had scratches on her back and abdomen. She told police that the two males took turns abusing her and that it lasted 15 to 30 minutes. She also told the interviewing officer that she “kept on begging them to let me out” and said “no” to Anderson and the other male 15 or 20 times, slapped them, and pushed them in an effort to stop the abuse. Anderson testified that he tried to penetrate her anally. He also testified the girl initiated the acts and consented to them. One of the investigating officers testified that the once playful mood changed once the activity moved to the bathroom:
While we were in the room we did hear, it sounded to us like it was kind of people wrestling around, playing, wrestling around. There was some giggling and talking and at one point we actually heard one of the females say, Jamal, help me. If you help me I’ll suck your *577dick. And there was a response from a male’s voice and then the female responded I’ll suck your dick for an hour. This is what I heard through the wall. There’s some more conversation for a short time that was unintelligible to me. What I did then, a short time later the female said not here, in the bathroom, and at that point we heard several individuals who we thought three at the time enter into what we thought was the bathroom and the door close. From that point we actually moved into the bathroom of our motel room that we were in. It seemed as the bathrooms in the motel rooms were just opposite each other, again sharing an inner wall. While the individuals were in there we heard the female say — actually saying one of the individual’s first names and then she stated no, no, I don’t want to do this. I don’t want to be like this anymore. During some of this conversation that I could hear she said no, no, several times. And then she also at one point I heard her make a statement, no, not my pants, I don’t want to do this. And then at some point around that time I personally actually heard something bump up against the wall, whether it was a person or somebody hitting the wall, I don’t know, but there was a bump up against the wall. It was shortly after that that myself and the Officer Haug heard what we thought were people exiting the bathroom.
(Emphasis added.) The district court noted in its findings of fact that both Dr. Rosalie Etherington, a clinical psychologist at the State Hospital, and Dr. Joseph Be-langer, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, found Anderson’s denial that force was used in the 1998 incident “incredible.” Although the conviction in 2000 for corrupting a minor did not figure greatly into the psychological evaluations, both doctors noted its significance, because Anderson was an adult, age 20, and his victim was a 16-year-old minor. This act satisfies the definition of sexually predatory conduct. See N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(9)(a)(7).
[¶27] The record supports, by clear and convincing evidence, the district court’s finding that Anderson has engaged in sexually predatory conduct. Anderson used force or caused or attempted to cause another individual to engage in a sexual act by locking the bathroom door, turning off the bathroom light, and taking turns holding the victim and abusing her sexually with help of another. Anderson knew or should have known that his contact was offensive to the victim, because she repeatedly said no to his advances, begged to leave the locked bathroom, and fought with Anderson to stop the abuse. Only the plea agreement reduced the charge from gross sexual imposition to sexual assault. The conduct, described in detail by the victim and partially observed by two police officers, remains. About two years after this incident, Anderson was discovered in bed with a sixteen-year-old girl when he was an adult. As Dr. Belanger noted, “The law makes no allowance for parental knowledge or cooperation of the minor. There are therefore two predecessory acts.” The district court’s finding that this element was met by clear and convincing evidence was not clearly erroneous.
B
[¶ 28] The second element for commitment is that the individual must have “a congenital or acquired condition that is manifested by a sexual disorder, a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction.” N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(8); In re G.R.H., 2006 ND 56, ¶ 6, 711 N.W.2d 587.
[¶ 29] The district court found from the evaluations of all three experts that
*578Anderson does not suffer from paraphilia, that is, a sexual disorder, but does have a severe antisocial personality disorder. At the commitment hearing, Dr. Belanger explained antisocial personality disorder:
The principal underlying idea is that some individuals have deficit or abnormality in the way the brain and the mind functions such that they are prone proportionally to the pursuit of their own interests and aims in life regardless of the callous impact of these on other people.
Dr. Belanger explained in his written report that “[t]he essential feature of Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.” Dr. Belanger further explained that “the respondent must be positive on at least three out of seven ways this [A] criterion set can be manifested. There are then three additional criterion sets [B, C, and D] to be met.” The district court noted that all three evaluators found Anderson satisfied six of the seven “A criterion” that form part of the antisocial personality disorder diagnosis — the missing feature was “[r]eckless disregard for safety of self or others.” In his written report and at the commitment hearing, Dr. Belanger explained the “A criterion” and their application to Anderson:
A.l.) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.... Undersigned counts 22 convictions on various criminal charges between [the date he turned 15] and his last sentencing date of February 2, 2001. Respondent has been incarcerated since. Item is met.
A.2.) Deceitfulness — Mr. Anderson provides an alternative explanation for the events [of the 1998 sex acts].... There is also the datum that respondent says he was a dealer in illegal psyehoactive substances and made $100,000 in a year. If this statement is true, then it follows that he must have successfully engaged in many deceits. If this statement is false, then if follows that the statement itself is a deceit. There are multiple other illustrations. Item is met.
A.3.) Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead — respondent says that most of his fights are impulsive. Great detail from the police investigation that is a precursor to the 3-23-99 conviction for aggravated assault was made available. This supports Mr. Anderson’s claim that he is impulsive when it comes to fighting. Respondent also failed to follow through with conditions of probation such as register as a sex offender, which given his familiarity with the legal system, is failure to plan ahead. He seems to have followed through on none of the recommendations given to him on 5-2J/.-99 for day treatment .... Item is met.
A.4.) Irritability and aggressiveness— Mr. Anderson has nine disciplinary write-ups that are not for assault and in which there is a definite mention made of irritability.... Item is met.
A.5.) Reckless disregard for safety of self or others — it can be construed that to sell stimulant drugs is to show reckless disregard for the safety of others, but others would argue that the disregard for safety of others must be of a much more imminent risk such as reckless driving. Jamal has a history of partaking in dangerous sports, but this is subthreshold. Undersigned only scores an item as met if the evidence for it exceeds “a reasonable degree of professional certainty.” By this threshold, item is not met although there may be reasonable professional difference about this.
*579A.6.) Consistent irresponsibility as evidenced by repeated failure to work consistently or honor financial obligations— It is repeatedly evidenced that Mr. Anderson has not worked and/or has rapidly become bored with work he obtained and quit. Item is met.
A.7.) Lack of remorse — there really is no strong evidence for remorse. Item is met.
(Emphasis added.) Dr. Belanger concluded that the remaining “B, C, and D criterion” were satisfied in Anderson’s case: Anderson was at least age 18 when diagnosed with the antisocial personality disorder; there was evidence of Conduct Disorder before age 15, because Anderson was convicted of shoplifting at age 9 or 10; and “no one has ever thought that Mr. Anderson has had either schizophrenia or mania.”
[¶ 30] Dr. Etherington, like Dr. Belan-ger, found six of the seven antisocial personality disorder factors present for Anderson. At the commitment hearing, she discussed her reliance on reports of his pattern of criminal behavior to diagnose Anderson with an antisocial personality disorder:
from Mr. Anderson’s case every time he is out he is committing crimes and my look of this is it has not stopped, it has not decreased. Then, additionally, his behavior in the prison there were several things that he would have done in there that would have been chargeable offenses. For instance, the most recent of which in 2005 was an assault against another inmate. ... I would consider that also diagnostic in failing to conform with social norms, that’s the pattern, starting at age 10 continuously through now.
(Emphasis added.) In her written report, she noted that he “received over 50 write-ups while in prison most in relation to impulsive acts.”
[¶ 31] Dr. Gulkin conducted the independent evaluation of Anderson and also found no evidence of a sexual disorder. He concurred that Anderson has a significant antisocial personality disorder:
Based upon history, clinical interview and the current testing, it is the impression of the undersigned that Mr. Anderson is reasonably diagnosed as showing a personality disorder with significant anti-social components. Mr. Anderson’s history is positive for a wide range of criminal activities going back to an early age. Aggression, property crimes and alcohol/drug offenses are found in a pattern of blatantly non-conforming behavior .... pronounced antisocial features are found in his clinical profile....

Based upon historical information and the current assessment, the undersigned finds that Mr. Anderson is an individual who meets the criterion for designation as a Sexually Dangerous Individual. ...

Mr. Anderson does not show a diagnosable sexual pathology but his history is positive for two incidents of predatory sexual behavior that resulted in legal consequences.... It appears that Mr. Anderson had a variety of sexual partners at the time of both charged incidents, reflecting issues of impulsivity and poor judgment. By his oum admission, behavioral control problems were present in the past even when he was sober_While Mr. Anderson does not appear to have actively groomed/targeted under aged females, his general sexual adjustment is problematic and his poor judgment/impulse control puts him at risk for further acts of sexually pred-

*580
atory behavior in unsupervised situations. ...

... Mr. Anderson’s potential for poorly controlled sexual behavior would suggest that a community placement with outpatient counseling, a tracker, etc. provides inadequate supervision at this time.
(Emphasis added.) All three experts concurred in the diagnosis of Anderson. All three experts found Anderson to have a “severe” or “significant” antisocial personality disorder. The district court’s finding of an antisocial personality disorder is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Although the component of “reckless disregard for safety of self or others” was not found, all three experts noted that only three of the seven factors need to be satisfied to form a diagnosis. The force Anderson used in the 1998 sex acts and his relationship with a minor in 2000 when he was an adult are legally significant. The “reckless disregard” factor also contemplates “sexual behavior or substance abuse that has a high risk for harmful consequences” and “neglect or failure] to care for a child in a way that puts the child in danger.” See American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 702 (rev. 4th ed. 2000) (DSM-IV-TR); American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 646 (4th ed. 1994) (DSM-IV). The 1998 police interview revealed that Anderson’s victim was caring for her child in the motel room where she was sexually assaulted and where Anderson and others were likely using alcohol and possibly marijuana. Dr. Belanger also noted Anderson’s assault on a fellow inmate as recently as 2005 — not to mention the doctor’s conclusion that “most of his fights are impulsive.” The district court’s finding that this element was met by clear and convincing evidence was not clearly erroneous.
C
[¶ 32] The third element required for commitment is that “the disorder makes the 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); In re G.R.H., 2006 ND 56, ¶ 6, 711 N.W.2d 587.
[¶ 33] “[P]roof 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.” Id. at ¶ 18.
[¶ 34] Dr. Belanger concluded:
In this case the disorder is logically consistent with there being a causative connection between a requisite mental condition and subsequent recidivist sexually predatory conduct.... [0]ne must note that there are two convictions for criminal conduct that meets one or another definitional standard for sexually predatory conduct....
Since there are predecessory acts and since the core feature of antisocial personality disorder is the callous and remorseless use of others, it follows that there is a probability that the personality disorder will lead to recidivist acts of sexually predatory conduct. The remainder of the assessment addresses whether it can be testified to either a reasonable degree of professional certainty or to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the probability is such that it can be concluded that the personality disorder makes the respon*581dent likely to engage in recidivist sexually predatory conduct.
(Emphasis added.)
[¶ 35] Psychometric “risk assessment inventories” or RAIs were also used to determine the probability or actuarial risk that Anderson will engage in future sexually predatory conduct: (1) the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offender Recidivism (“RRASOR”); (2) the Static-99; and (3) the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (“MnSOST-R”). A fourth test, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (“PCL-R 2nd”), is a tool “to measure the degree of psychopathy present.” Dr. Etherington concluded that Anderson’s PCL-R 2nd score indicated that his antisocial personality disorder was more severe than the general prison population’s.
[¶ 36] Dr. Belanger concluded:
Mr. Anderson has a severe antisocial personality disorder. He has a conviction history that includes GSI [gross sexual imposition] and corruption of a minor. He has a high MnSOST-R and a high PCL-R 2nd score. These four items of data support the opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty that respondent has a personality disorder that renders him likely to engage in additional acts of sexually predatory conduct.
(Emphasis added.) Dr. Etherington arrived at a similar conclusion and stressed Anderson’s failure to complete sex offender treatment:
Mr. Anderson meets the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder. This disorder creates initial reason to believe he is likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct. The actuarial instruments lend additional support to further acts of sexually predatory conduct. He has not completed a treatment program that might be a protective factor. There is no idiosyncratic factor that might serve as a protective factor. This combination allows the undersigned to conclude to a reasonable degree of professional or scientific certainty that Mr. Anderson is an individual with a congenital or acquired condition that makes him likely to engage in future acts of sexually predatory conduct.
(Emphasis added.) Dr. Gulkin concurred: “One of the most potent factors which mediate against re-offense is the successful completion of a Sex Offender Treatment Program. Mr. Anderson has not completed such a program and had apparently been removed ... due to failure to cooperate.” With respect to the actuarial testing, Dr. Gulkin reviewed the results of the State Hospital’s testing and found that “the administration/scoring of the RAI evaluations at the State Hospital supports the findings and conclusions.”
1
[¶ 37] Under the RRASOR, Anderson’s score demonstrated “his lack of a specific paraphilic diagnosis.” In other words, he does not have a sexual disorder according to all three experts. Consequently, his score of “2” on a scale of 0-6 indicates “about a 14.2% likelihood for being recon-victed for a new sexual offense within 5 years post-incarceration,” and about 21% probability that Anderson would engage in recidivist acts in the next 10 years.
[¶ 38] The diagnosis of a sexual disorder is not required under section 25-03.3-01(8), N.D.C.C. The individual satisfies a portion of this section, part (2) under In re G.R.H., 2006 ND 56, 116, 711 N.W.2d 587, by being diagnosed with “a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction.” See N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(8). Therefore, in this case the RRASOR assessment served only to eliminate one of *582the possible congenital or acquired conditions required under the statute.
2
[¶ 39] Under the MnSOST-R, Anderson’s score of 14 correlates to a 78% likelihood of committing another chargeable sexual offense in the next 6 years. Dr. Etherington characterized this score as “corresponding to the highest-risk range assessed by this scale.”
3
[¶ 40] Under the Static-99, Anderson scored a 5 on a scale of 11 or 12; however, Dr. Belanger testified that “the highest known score achieved in reality is about a seven.” This test measures both paraphi-lia and antisocial personality disorder; therefore, “the strong loading on the antisocial factor is washed out to a degree by the low loading on the paraphilic factor,” according to Dr. Belanger. According to Drs. Etherington and Belanger, even with this mitigation, Anderson’s score translates to a 38 to 40 percent probability of recidivism over the next 15 years.
4
[f 41] Under the PCL-R 2nd, Dr. Etherington concluded:
His PCL-R score of 37-39 falls well above the threshold score of 25 + for a finding of a high degree of psychopathy, however, he was not diagnosed with a sexual disorder. It is therefore concluded that this high-risk combination does not affect Mr. Anderson’s sexual recidivism risk. The high score on this measure, however, does support a belief that Mr. Anderson has a more severe antisocial personality than the general prison population.
(Emphasis added.) Dr. Belanger explained the importance of the PCL-R 2nd assessment:
The PCL-R 2nd scores are important in two different ways. First, it provides test corroboration to the clinical diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. Second, the detail scores ... are well within the range of scores that are associated with diminished response modulation. [footnote omitted] Thus the PCL-R 2nd scores also provide a basis for the opinion that Mr. Anderson is likely to engage because of a deficit in volitional capacity sufficient to create serious difficulty in the exercise of self-control.
(Emphasis added.)
D
[¶ 42] All three experts concluded that Anderson has engaged in sexually predatory conduct, each noting the significance of the 1998 gross sexual imposition charge and the 2000 conviction for corruption of a minor. All three experts found Anderson to have a “severe” or “significant” antisocial personality disorder. All three experts found the required nexis or “causative connection” between Anderson’s personality disorder and his dangerousness by noting his impulse-control problems as evidenced by the 1998 and 2000 incidents as well as the many fights and “write-ups” he has had while incarcerated. Drs. Etherington and Gul-kin stressed the significance of Anderson’s failure to complete sex offender treatment. All three experts concluded Anderson is a sexually dangerous individual and recommended involuntary civil commitment. All three experts relied on the combination of clinical interviews, actuarial testing, and a review of Anderson’s record of conduct to arrive at their conclusions. In the expert opinion of three doctors, Anderson is not the typical recidivist in the ordinary criminal case.
[¶ 43] The district court’s commitment order is supported by clear and convincing evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
*583V
[¶ 44] We affirm the judgment of the district court.
[¶ 45] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., and DANIEL J. CROTHERS, MARY MUEHLEN MARING, JJ., concur.