discharge hearing in North Dakota

2023II [¶4] “At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual.” In re Wolff, 2011 ND 76 , ¶ 6, 796 N.W.2d 644 .

2019Voisine, 2018 ND 181, ¶ 5 , 915 N.W.2d 647 (citing Tanner, at ¶ 4; Matter of Wolff, 2011 ND 76, ¶ 5 , 796 N.W.2d 644 ). [¶6] “At a discharge hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a ‘sexually dangerous 3 individual’ under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18(4).” Voisine, 2018 ND 181, ¶ 6 , 915 N.W.2d 647 (citing Matter of Hehn, 2015 ND 218, ¶ 5 , 868 N.W.2d 551 ).

2023II [¶4] “At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual.” In re Wolff, 2011 ND 76 , ¶ 6, 796 N.W.2d 644 .

2019Voisine, 2018 ND 181, ¶ 5 , 915 N.W.2d 647 (citing Tanner, at ¶ 4; Matter of Wolff, 2011 ND 76, ¶ 5 , 796 N.W.2d 644 ). [¶6] “At a discharge hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a ‘sexually dangerous 3 individual’ under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18(4).” Voisine, 2018 ND 181, ¶ 6 , 915 N.W.2d 647 (citing Matter of Hehn, 2015 ND 218, ¶ 5 , 868 N.W.2d 551 ).

2011II [¶ 4] “At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual.” Matter of Midgett, 2010 ND 98, ¶ 7 , 783 N.W.2d 27 .

2011II [¶ 4] “At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual.” Matter of Midgett, 2010 ND 98, ¶ 7 , 783 N.W.2d 27 .

2019Voisine, 2018 ND 181, ¶ 5 , 915 N.W.2d 647 (citing Tanner, at ¶ 4; Matter of Wolff, 2011 ND 76, ¶ 5 , 796 N.W.2d 644 ). [¶6] “At a discharge hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a ‘sexually dangerous 3 individual’ under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18(4).” Voisine, 2018 ND 181, ¶ 6 , 915 N.W.2d 647 (citing Matter of Hehn, 2015 ND 218, ¶ 5 , 868 N.W.2d 551 ).

2019Voisine, 2018 ND 181, ¶ 5 , 915 N.W.2d 647 (citing Tanner, at ¶ 4; Matter of Wolff, 2011 ND 76, ¶ 5 , 796 N.W.2d 644 ). [¶6] “At a discharge hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a ‘sexually dangerous 3 individual’ under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18(4).” Voisine, 2018 ND 181, ¶ 6 , 915 N.W.2d 647 (citing Matter of Hehn, 2015 ND 218, ¶ 5 , 868 N.W.2d 551 ).

2015At a discharge hearing the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence the committed individual remains a “sexually dangerous individual.” N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18(4); In re Hehn, 2013 ND 191, ¶ 8 , 838 N.W.2d 469 .

2015At a discharge hearing the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence the committed individual remains a “sexually dangerous individual.” N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18(4); In re Hehn, 2013 ND 191, ¶ 8 , 838 N.W.2d 469 .

2015Further, “[a] party must do more than submit bare assertions to adequately raise constitutional issues.” Id. (quoting E.W.F., 2008 ND 130, ¶ 21 , 751 N.W.2d 686 ). [¶ 11] Here, Hehn reserved and then waived making an opening statement at the discharge hearing.

2015Further, “[a] party must do more than submit bare assertions to adequately raise constitutional issues.” Id. (quoting E.W.F., 2008 ND 130, ¶ 21 , 751 N.W.2d 686 ). [¶ 11] Here, Hehn reserved and then waived making an opening statement at the discharge hearing.

2010Id. [¶ 7] At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual.

2010Id. [¶ 7] At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual.

2013Id. [¶9] At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the petitioner remains a sexually dangerous individual.

2013Id. [¶ 9] At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the petitioner remains a sexually dangerous individual.

2013Matter of M.D. , 2012 ND 261, ¶ 7 , 825 N.W.2d 838 .

2013Matter of M.D., 2012 ND 261, ¶ 7 , 825 N.W.2d 838 .

2013Matter of M.D. , 2012 ND 261, ¶ 7 , 825 N.W.2d 838 .

2013Matter of M.D., 2012 ND 261, ¶ 7 , 825 N.W.2d 838 .

2012On August 5, 2010, after Ru-bey’s criminal convictions of crimes involving horrific abuse against children, the “district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Rubey [was] a sexually dangerous individual and committed him to the care, custody, and control of the executive director of the Department of Human Services under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3.” In re Rubey, 2011 ND 165 , ¶3, 801 N.W.2d 702 (affirming order). [¶3] On June 14, 2011, a representative of the North Dakota State Hospital advised Rubey of his right to file an annual petition to the district court for discharge from civil

2012On August 5, 2010, after Rubey’s criminal convictions of crimes involving horrific abuse against children, the “district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Rubey [was] a sexually dangerous individual and committed him to the care, custody, and control of the executive director of the Department of Human Services under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3.” In re Rubey , 2011 ND 165, ¶ 3 , 801 N.W.2d 702 (affirming order). [¶3] On June 14, 2011, a representative of the North Dakota State Hospital advised Rubey of his right to file an annual petition to the district court for discharge from civil

2012On August 5, 2010, after Ru-bey’s criminal convictions of crimes involving horrific abuse against children, the “district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Rubey [was] a sexually dangerous individual and committed him to the care, custody, and control of the executive director of the Department of Human Services under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3.” In re Rubey, 2011 ND 165 , ¶3, 801 N.W.2d 702 (affirming order). [¶3] On June 14, 2011, a representative of the North Dakota State Hospital advised Rubey of his right to file an annual petition to the district court for discharge from civil

2012On August 5, 2010, after Rubey’s criminal convictions of crimes involving horrific abuse against children, the “district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Rubey [was] a sexually dangerous individual and committed him to the care, custody, and control of the executive director of the Department of Human Services under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3.” In re Rubey , 2011 ND 165, ¶ 3 , 801 N.W.2d 702 (affirming order). [¶3] On June 14, 2011, a representative of the North Dakota State Hospital advised Rubey of his right to file an annual petition to the district court for discharge from civil

2011Matter of Hanenberg, 2010 ND 8, ¶ 9 , 777 N.W.2d 62 . [¶ 6] At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous indi vidual.

2011Matter of Hanenberg , 2010 ND 8, ¶ 9 , 777 N.W.2d 62 . [¶6] At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual.

2011“We will affirm a district court’s order denying a petition for discharge unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law or we are firmly convinced it is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. [¶ 4] At a discharge hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual.

2011“We will affirm a district court’s order denying a petition for discharge unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law or we are firmly convinced it is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. [¶4] At a discharge hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual.

2011Matter of Hanenberg, 2010 ND 8, ¶ 9 , 777 N.W.2d 62 . [¶ 6] At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous indi vidual.

2011Matter of Hanenberg , 2010 ND 8, ¶ 9 , 777 N.W.2d 62 . [¶6] At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual.

2008Interest of M.D., 1999 ND 160 , 598 N.W.2d 799 . [¶ 3] For the first time since his commitment, M.D. petitioned for discharge in 2007 under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18(1); a discharge hearing was held in March 2008.

2008Interest of M.D., 1999 ND 160 , 598 N.W.2d 799 . [¶ 3] For the first time since his commitment, M.D. petitioned for discharge in 2007 under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18(1); a discharge hearing was held in March 2008.

2008E.W.F., 2008 ND 130, ¶ 10 , 751 N.W.2d 686 (citing Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S.Ct. 867 , 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002)). [¶ 7] Here, the district court found, “[t]he State has shown by clear and convincing evidence that [R.A.S.] remains a sexually dangerous individual as defined in N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01.” The court did not make any further findings supporting its decision in its order denying discharge or orally during the discharge hearing. [¶ 8] In civil actions tried without a jury or with an- advisory jury, N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) requires the court to: find the facts specially and stat

2008E.W.F., 2008 ND 130, ¶ 10 , 751 N.W.2d 686 (citing Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S.Ct. 867 , 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002)). [¶ 7] Here, the district court found, “[t]he State has shown by clear and convincing evidence that [R.A.S.] remains a sexually dangerous individual as defined in N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01.” The court did not make any further findings supporting its decision in its order denying discharge or orally during the discharge hearing. [¶ 8] In civil actions tried without a jury or with an- advisory jury, N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) requires the court to: find the facts specially and stat

2025Int. of Skorick, 2020 ND 162 , 946 N.W.2d 513 (reversed and remanded due to district court’s reliance on an expert report not offered into evidence); Int. of Skorick, 2022 ND 141 , 977 N.W.2d 697 (affirmed) (Skorick II); Int. of Skorick, 2024 ND 83 , 6 N.W.3d 666 (affirmed) (Skorick III). [¶3] In August 2024, Skorick requested a discharge hearing under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18.

2025Int. of Sternberg, 2023 ND 40, ¶ 7 , 987 N.W.2d 340 (cleaned up). [¶6] At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual.

2025Int. of Sternberg, 2023 ND 40, ¶ 7 , 987 N.W.2d 340 (cleaned up). [¶6] At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the committed individual remains a sexually dangerous individual.

2025Int. of Skorick, 2020 ND 162 , 946 N.W.2d 513 (reversed and remanded due to district court’s reliance on an expert report not offered into evidence); Int. of Skorick, 2022 ND 141 , 977 N.W.2d 697 (affirmed) (Skorick II); Int. of Skorick, 2024 ND 83 , 6 N.W.3d 666 (affirmed) (Skorick III). [¶3] In August 2024, Skorick requested a discharge hearing under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18.

2025Skorick III, 2024 ND 83, ¶ 6 .

2025Int. of Skorick, 2020 ND 162 , 946 N.W.2d 513 (reversed and remanded due to district court’s reliance on an expert report not offered into evidence); Int. of Skorick, 2022 ND 141 , 977 N.W.2d 697 (affirmed) (Skorick II); Int. of Skorick, 2024 ND 83 , 6 N.W.3d 666 (affirmed) (Skorick III). [¶3] In August 2024, Skorick requested a discharge hearing under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18.

2024The court’s decision will be affirmed unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law or we are firmly convinced the decision is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.” Matter of Didier, 2023 ND 218, ¶ 4 , 997 N.W.2d 837 . 1 [¶6] At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving a person remains a sexually dangerous individual by clear and convincing evidence.

2024The court’s decision will be affirmed unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law or we are firmly convinced the decision is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.” Matter of Didier, 2023 ND 218, ¶ 4 , 997 N.W.2d 837 . 1 [¶6] At a discharge hearing, the State has the burden of proving a person remains a sexually dangerous individual by clear and convincing evidence.

2024N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18(4); In re Buller, 2020 ND 270, ¶ 14 , 952 N.W.2d 106 .

2023Interest of G.L.D., 2020 ND 45 , 939 N.W.2d 405 (affirmed on additional findings); Interest of G.L.D., 2019 ND 304 , 936 N.W.2d 539 (remanded on insufficient findings of fact); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 26 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 25 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2014 ND 194 , 855 N.W.2d 99 (vacated the order denying petition for discharge and remanded); In re G.L.D., 2012 ND 233 , 823 N.W.2d 786 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2011 ND 52 (affirmed). [¶3] In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing.

2023Interest of G.L.D., 2020 ND 45 , 939 N.W.2d 405 (affirmed on additional findings); Interest of G.L.D., 2019 ND 304 , 936 N.W.2d 539 (remanded on insufficient findings of fact); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 26 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 25 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2014 ND 194 , 855 N.W.2d 99 (vacated the order denying petition for discharge and remanded); In re G.L.D., 2012 ND 233 , 823 N.W.2d 786 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2011 ND 52 (affirmed). [¶3] In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing.

2023Interest of G.L.D., 2020 ND 45 , 939 N.W.2d 405 (affirmed on additional findings); Interest of G.L.D., 2019 ND 304 , 936 N.W.2d 539 (remanded on insufficient findings of fact); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 26 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 25 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2014 ND 194 , 855 N.W.2d 99 (vacated the order denying petition for discharge and remanded); In re G.L.D., 2012 ND 233 , 823 N.W.2d 786 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2011 ND 52 (affirmed). [¶3] In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing.

2023Interest of G.L.D., 2020 ND 45 , 939 N.W.2d 405 (affirmed on additional findings); Interest of G.L.D., 2019 ND 304 , 936 N.W.2d 539 (remanded on insufficient findings of fact); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 26 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 25 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2014 ND 194 , 855 N.W.2d 99 (vacated the order denying petition for discharge and remanded); In re G.L.D., 2012 ND 233 , 823 N.W.2d 786 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2011 ND 52 (affirmed). [¶3] In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing.

2023Interest of G.L.D., 2020 ND 45 , 939 N.W.2d 405 (affirmed on additional findings); Interest of G.L.D., 2019 ND 304 , 936 N.W.2d 539 (remanded on insufficient findings of fact); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 26 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 25 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2014 ND 194 , 855 N.W.2d 99 (vacated the order denying petition for discharge and remanded); In re G.L.D., 2012 ND 233 , 823 N.W.2d 786 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2011 ND 52 (affirmed). [¶3] In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing.

2023Interest of G.L.D., 2020 ND 45 , 939 N.W.2d 405 (affirmed on additional findings); Interest of G.L.D., 2019 ND 304 , 936 N.W.2d 539 (remanded on insufficient findings of fact); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 26 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 25 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2014 ND 194 , 855 N.W.2d 99 (vacated the order denying petition for discharge and remanded); In re G.L.D., 2012 ND 233 , 823 N.W.2d 786 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2011 ND 52 (affirmed). [¶3] In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing.

2023Interest of G.L.D., 2020 ND 45 , 939 N.W.2d 405 (affirmed on additional findings); Interest of G.L.D., 2019 ND 304 , 936 N.W.2d 539 (remanded on insufficient findings of fact); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 26 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 25 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2014 ND 194 , 855 N.W.2d 99 (vacated the order denying petition for discharge and remanded); In re G.L.D., 2012 ND 233 , 823 N.W.2d 786 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2011 ND 52 (affirmed). [¶3] In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing.

2023Interest of G.L.D., 2020 ND 45 , 939 N.W.2d 405 (affirmed on additional findings); Interest of G.L.D., 2019 ND 304 , 936 N.W.2d 539 (remanded on insufficient findings of fact); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 26 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 25 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2014 ND 194 , 855 N.W.2d 99 (vacated the order denying petition for discharge and remanded); In re G.L.D., 2012 ND 233 , 823 N.W.2d 786 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2011 ND 52 (affirmed). [¶3] In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing.

2023Interest of G.L.D., 2020 ND 45 , 939 N.W.2d 405 (affirmed on additional findings); Interest of G.L.D., 2019 ND 304 , 936 N.W.2d 539 (remanded on insufficient findings of fact); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 26 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 25 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2014 ND 194 , 855 N.W.2d 99 (vacated the order denying petition for discharge and remanded); In re G.L.D., 2012 ND 233 , 823 N.W.2d 786 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2011 ND 52 (affirmed). [¶3] In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing.

2023Interest of G.L.D., 2020 ND 45 , 939 N.W.2d 405 (affirmed on additional findings); Interest of G.L.D., 2019 ND 304 , 936 N.W.2d 539 (remanded on insufficient findings of fact); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 26 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2016 ND 25 , 876 N.W.2d 485 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2014 ND 194 , 855 N.W.2d 99 (vacated the order denying petition for discharge and remanded); In re G.L.D., 2012 ND 233 , 823 N.W.2d 786 (affirmed); In re G.L.D., 2011 ND 52 (affirmed). [¶3] In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing.