IN RE: Aaron J. KULINK Leah J. Viste, Assistant State’s Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. Aaron J. Kulink, Respondent and Appellant
[¶1] Kulink appeals from an order denying discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Kulink argues the district court did not make sufficient findings on the “likely to reoffend” element under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(8) or the Crane factor of “serious difficulty controlling behavior.” See Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 412-13, 122 S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). Additionally, Kulink argues the State did not meet its burden of clear and convincing evidence on the two prongs. This Court retained jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3) and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. See Matter of Kulink, 2018 ND 260, 920 N.W.2d 446.
[¶2] The district court issued its Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Discharge on December 7, 2018. This Court received additional briefs from both parties. Kulink argues that the petitioner did not present clear and convincing evidence satisfying the Crane factor. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
[¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Daniel J. Crothers Jon J. Jensen Lisa Fair McEvers
Was this helpful?