Court Opinion

ID: 9877026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 15:45:22.131178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:53.234806
License: Public Domain

Sandstrom, Surrogate Judge,
dissenting.
[¶ 13] The majority orders the release of a sex offender with a high risk of re-offending. I respectfully dissent. The district court made the necessary findings supported by the evidence in the record, and should be affirmed.
[¶ 14] The record reflects Nelson’s twenty-year history of sexual and sexual-related offenses. Dr. Jennifer Krance reported:
*929Mr. Nelson’s history of sexually related offenses dates back to at least the early 1990’s (i.e., more than 20 years). Over that period of time, Mr. Nelson was convicted on four counts of Theft of Property for entering the residences of females to steal various items, mainly ladies undergarments, for sexual gratification. He entered some of these residences on more than one occasion. At the time he entered these residences, he was on supervised probation from a conviction for Aggravated Assault. He was convicted of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child in 2009 for sexually abusing [a child] when she was between the ages of nine and 15. Regarding this conviction, Mr. Nelson stated, “Something was put in front of me and I didn’t say no.” The average male (i.e., non-paraphilic) does not have a problem refusing sexual contact with a 13 or 14-year-old female, even if the contact was actually just “put in front of’ the individual, as Mr. Nelson claimed. During the time the sexual abuse was occurring, Mr. Nelson faced several other legal convictions, often alcohol related driving offenses. There are no indications from the available documentation that Mr. Nelson sexually acted out in an offensive manner while incarcerated with the DOCR. However, sexual acting out behavior is not a necessary requirement to conclude that he will experience serious difficulty controlling his behavior if released to the community. In addition to his high Static-99R and PCL-R scores, the fact that he committed sexual related offenses while on probation, in spite of the potential consequences, demonstrates that Mr. Nelson does have serious difficulty controlling his behavior, and that this difficulty differentiates him from the “dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case” (Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407,122 S.Ct. 867).
[¶ 15] For this evaluation, Dr. Krance administered the Static-99R, now “the gold standard in the field for sex offender risk assessment.” The Static-99R shows that Nelson’s current score places him at high risk to sexually reoffend.
[¶ 16] Dr. Krance further reported that current STABLE-2007 “results indicate that Mr. Nelson poses a high risk of sexually offensive behavior over the short term.”
[¶ 17] Dr. Krance also identified Nelson’s currently held belief that he has no risk of reoffending as itself creating a heightened risk.
Mr. Nelson sees himself as posing no risk for further acts of sexually predatory conduct if released to the community. Seeing oneself as very low or no risk is accepted in the field as a dynamic risk factor for reoffense, in that it suggests a lack of insight and awareness of the risk one poses as well as the factors that lead to reoffense, and thus some lack of ability or willingness to avoid high-risk situations. This is further apparent with his historical inability to maintain sobriety from alcohol and cannabis, despite involvement with chemical dependency treatment in the past, numerous legal consequences, and negatively impacting his relationships with others.
[¶ 18] This proceeding is governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3 providing for the civil commitment of sexually dangerous individuals.
“Sexually dangerous individual” means an individual who is shown to have engaged in sexually predatory conduct and who has a congenital or acquired condi*930tion that is manifested by a sexual disorder, a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction that 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. It is a rebuttable presumption that sexually predatory conduct creates a danger to the physical or mental health or safety of the victim of the conduct....
N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(8). In Matter of G.R.H., 2006 ND 56, 711 N.W.2d 587, the constitutionality of our statute was challenged under Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 122 S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). We carefully analyzed our statutory language and held:
Consistent with the language in our statute and to avoid any possible constitutional infirmity, 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. We conclude that nexus between the requisite disorder and future dangerousness satisfies the due process requirements of Crane.
G.R.H., at ¶ 18.
[¶ 19] The district court made the necessary findings, and they are supported by the record. The majority ignores facts in the record and impermissibly substitutes its judgment for that of the trial court.
[¶ 20] Dale V. Sandstrom, S.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.