Court Opinion

ID: 9511716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:07:21.85168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:08.263878
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RICE
dissents.
¶16 In ¶ 11, the Court explains that the State argues that sufficient evidence was presented to warrant E.P.B.’s commitment, but because the Court concludes that the District Court’s findings are legally insufficient, it will not address the sufficiency of the evidence.
¶17 The State addressed the sufficiency of the evidence because that issue was raised by the Appellant: “E.P.B. contends that the entirety of the testimony, taken as a whole, did not and does not rise to the level of a mental disorder that substantially and adversely impacts cognitive and volitional functions. ... [Tjhe District Court misapprehended the effect of the evidence ....” Appellant’s Opening Brief, pp. 14-15. The State did not address the legal sufficiency of the findings, the ground upon which the Court is reversing, because that issue was not raised on appeal by the Appellant. Given that the issue was not raised, it is small wonder why the State did not address it. The State thus had no opportunity to offer argument on the question which the Court concludes is dispositive.
¶18 I would decide the case upon the issues which have been brought before us.