In a recent decision, the North Dakota Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling, upholding the commitment of Edward Skorick as a sexually dangerous individual. Skorick, who has a history of sex offenses, had appealed the district court’s denial of his petition for discharge from the North Dakota State Hospital. The Supreme Court found that the district court had sufficient evidence to conclude Skorick continues to have serious difficulty controlling his behavior.
Background of the Case
[¶2] The case has a long history. Skorick has a history of committing sex offenses dating back to 1980. He was initially incarcerated in 2002 and later transferred to the North Dakota State Hospital in 2018. In 2019, the district court ordered his commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Skorick has repeatedly sought discharge, with previous appeals reaching the Supreme Court. This is the fourth time the case has been appealed. The previous appeals have addressed issues such as the admissibility of expert reports and the adequacy of the evidence.
The Legal Standard
[¶5] The Supreme Court emphasized the standard of review for these types of cases. They review civil commitments of sexually dangerous individuals under a “modified clearly erroneous standard.” This means the court will uphold the lower court’s decision unless it’s based on a misunderstanding of the law or if the evidence presented doesn’t clearly and convincingly support the decision. The court must also clearly state the facts that led to its ultimate conclusion.
[¶6] The State has the burden of proof in these cases and must show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the individual remains sexually dangerous. This requires proving three things:
* The individual has engaged in sexually predatory conduct.
* The individual has a mental disorder or dysfunction.
* The individual is likely to engage in further sexually predatory conduct because of the disorder.
Additionally, to meet constitutional requirements, the state must prove the individual has “serious difficulty controlling his behavior.”
Skorick’s Arguments and the Court’s Findings
[¶7] Skorick’s primary argument was that the state didn’t provide enough evidence to prove he has “serious difficulty controlling his behavior.” This is a crucial element, as it establishes a connection between the individual’s mental state and their potential for future harmful actions.
[¶8] The court explained that “serious difficulty controlling behavior” means there’s a connection between the individual’s disorder and their inability to control behavior, which could lead to sexually predatory conduct.
[¶9] The district court relied on testimony from Dr. Peter Byrne, a licensed psychologist, who had conducted an annual evaluation of Skorick. The court also considered Skorick’s history of criminal offenses, including his “lengthy history of sexually offending against female children and adult females.”
[¶10] Dr. Byrne’s report indicated that Skorick had diagnoses of:
* Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder (with various behaviors)
* Antisocial Personality Disorder
* Alcohol Use Disorder (in partial remission)
Dr. Byrne also stated that Skorick was three to four times more likely to reoffend than others convicted of similar offenses.
[¶11] The district court specifically addressed the connection between Skorick’s mental disorders and his sexually offending behavior. Dr. Byrne testified that Skorick’s disorders impact his emotional, volitional, and behavioral abilities, causing him serious difficulty controlling his behavior.
[¶12] The court also considered Skorick’s behavior during the review period. He received five “behavior acknowledgments” or write-ups for things like failing to follow rules, verbal aggression, bullying, and impulsive decision-making. Dr. Byrne also noted other issues like mumbling, ignoring staff, and making rude comments. The court noted that Skorick was in a highly controlled environment and that his difficulties controlling his behavior would likely be worse in a less restrictive setting.
[¶13] The district court also highlighted Skorick’s lack of participation in treatment. He refused to attend or participate in group therapy sessions. Dr. Byrne noted that Skorick wasn’t actively engaged in addressing his sexual risks and problems.
[¶14] While Skorick had the right to an independent evaluation, he did not call his own expert to testify at the discharge hearing. The district court drew a negative inference from this, as it is allowed to do.
Comparison to Previous Cases
[¶15-18] The court distinguished Skorick’s situation from cases he cited in his arguments. The court noted that in these previous cases, there wasn’t a strong enough connection between the individual’s behavior and their likelihood of reoffending.
[¶19] The court ultimately concluded that Skorick’s behavioral issues were more significant than the limited incidents in the cases he cited. They emphasized his write-ups and his refusal to participate in treatment.
The Court’s Decision
[¶20-21] Based on the evidence presented, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the finding that Skorick has serious difficulty controlling his behavior.