Court Opinion

ID: 9810865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:01:58.107961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:17.028306
License: Public Domain

KAPSNER, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 25] I respectfully dissent.
*841[¶26] In 2013, I dissented from the majority’s affirmance of the district court’s holding that Nelson Whitetail Sr. is a sexually dangerous individual. In re Whitetail, 2013 ND 143, ¶¶ 18-31, 835 N.W.2d 827 (Kapsner, J., dissenting). I did so on the basis that there was then no current evidence that established Whitetail met the criteria of a sexually dangerous individual under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3 or under Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 412, 122 S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002).
[¶ 27] Another year has passed, and this record provides even less evidentiary support for the statutory requirement that the State demonstrate Whitetail is “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.
[¶ 28] Dr. Riedel, the expert who testified on behalf of Whitetail, reviewed the actuarial assessment of re-offending sexually and reported to the court:
The highest estimate produces a result that expects the odds to be 4 to 1 against Mr. White Tail reoffending sexually. The lowest has odds of almost 8 to 1 against reoffending sexually.
I realize that the North Dakota Supreme court in MBK v. Grossinger opined that these hearing[s] should not[] be a contest over numbers but when the numbers are so extremely low we should consider them somewhat commanding.
In relation to the Crane requirement I would state that he has not had any sexual or any other kind acting out since the instant offense so I think the best conclusion is that he currently is exhibiting an adequate amount of control and a great deal of direction in his treatment at NDSH.
(Footnote omitted.)
[¶ 29] But, perhaps more importantly, Dr. Lisota, who testified on behalf of the State, reported:
In light of these results, it is the undersigned’s professional opinion that Mr. White Tail’s actuarially assessed static (baseline) risk of sexual recidivism does not meet the criteria of “likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct” as defined by NDCC 25-03.3.
(Emphasis in original.)
[¶ 30] Dr. Lisota’s report indicates Whitetail’s raw score on his psychopathy test is 21 and “As such, Mr. White Tail’s results on the PCL-R do not suggest that psychopathy is an aggravating factor with regard to his risk for sexual re-offense.”
[¶ 31] Dr. Lisota’s report stated that he did a “comprehensive review of Mr. White Tail’s chart over the past year.” His summary report was that “Mr. White .Tail’s attendance and participation in assigned groups has been excellent across the review period. He is not a behavior management problem, and actively provides good feedback for his peers and frequently serves in a ‘mentor’ role.”
The undersigned asked Mr. White Tail’s therapist, Daniel Everson, to provide a summary statement of his perspective of Mr. White Tail’s treatment performance over the course of the review period. He provided the following information: “Mr. White Tail has been very consistent with his behavior and his progress in the program. He is taking his time to think about his recovery. He has taken responsibility for his offending behaviors. Mr. White Tail is active in the group and provides a lot of insight to other group, members with his reflecting, relating, and challenging others to *842look deeper into why they act or react a certain way in a reported situation. He is not afraid to confront others and is very willing to offer support.”
[[Image here]]
Impulsivity does not seem to be an issue for Mr. White Tail at this time, though he indicated it would be problematic if he was drinking or using drugs.
[[Image here]]
Mr. White Tail indicated he is not ready for discharge at this time. He indicated this was “Because I’ve never dealt with my childhood issues. I’ve been through treatment for sex offenses, I’m finding now that my sexual offending was linked to my childhood. I have more than just the sexual offending to address in treatment.”
[¶ 32] Despite the lack of any eviden-tiary showing that Whitetail is currently unable, based on his behavior or actuarial assessments, to control his behavior, Dr. Lisota’s report recommends that Whitetail be found to be likely to engage in future sexually dangerous conduct on the following basis:
It is the undersigned’s professional opinion that Mr. White Tail does not currently demonstrate “serious difficulty” controlling his behavior due to his application of treatment principles in a controlled environment. Were he to fall back into old patterns this would likely be problematic, and, most importantly, whether or not Mr. White Tail can maintain his current level of performance in a less restrictive environment remains to be seen.
“Remains to be seen” does not meet the statutory test of “likely to engage.” “Remains to be seen” is just another way of saying “I don’t know” and would apply to anyone who had ever engaged in criminal activity. Dr. Lisota’s report does not articulate an evidentiary basis on which the district court can make a finding adverse to Whitetail under either the “likely to engage” prong of N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(8) or under the substantive due process requirements of Crane. The State has failed to meet its burden to keep Whitetail committed.
[¶ 33] CAROL RONNING KAPSNER