Court Opinion

ID: 9806538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:11:52.539009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:24.081998
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 12] I respectfully dissent. The majority reverses on an issue not argued by Johnson. The appellant did not challenge the sufficiency of the district court’s findings. The argument on appeal was that the State failed to meet its burden of proof, as evidenced by the following from Johnson’s brief:
*488“Based on the argument set forth as well as the evidence at hand, it is apparent that the State failed to meet its burden and the district court erred in determining that there was clear and convincing evidence that Johnson remains a sexually dangerous individual. Jeremy Johnson respectfully requests this Court reverse the decision of the district court and grant Jeremy his immediate release.”
[¶ 13] While the findings could have been more comprehensive, we should not reverse on an issue not argued by the appellant. See Berg v. Ullman, 1998 ND 74, ¶ 41, 576 N.W.2d 218 (“Re-lawyering is not the appropriate role of an appellate court.”). Based on the issue raised, I would affirm because the record shows the district court did not clearly err by finding the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Johnson remains a sexually dangerous individual.
[¶ 14] DALE V. SANDSTROM, J., concurs.