Julie Lawyer, State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. D.V.A., Respondent and Appellant (2026)

[¶1] D.V.A. appeals from a district court order denying his petition for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. D.V.A. argues the district court's factual findings did not show the State met its burden of clear and convincing evidence proving the “serious difficulty controlling his behavior” element necessary to find him a sexually dangerous individual. See Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 411-13, 122 S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856 (2002). “We review civil commitments of sexually dangerous individuals under a modified clearly erroneous standard of review.” In re G.L.D., 2023 ND 99, ¶ 6, 991 N.W.2d 62. We conclude the district court's finding that D.V.A. remains a sexually dangerous individual who has serious difficulty controlling his behavior was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not clearly erroneous. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Per Curiam.

[¶2] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Mark A. Friese Cherie L. Clark, D.J.[¶3] The Honorable Cherie L. Clark, D.J., sitting in place of Bahr, J., disqualified.