Minnesota Supreme Court takes unusual step of reversing sex offender's commitment

4-23-2014 Minnesota:

The Minnesota Supreme Court has taken the unusual step of reversing the commitment of a man to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and sent the case back to a lower court for further proceedings.

The high court reaffirmed Wednesday that courts must find sex offenders "highly likely" to reoffend before civilly committing them to the secure treatment program, which is the subject of a constitutional challenge in federal court and debate at the Legislature. But the justices said judges need to make formal findings of fact on whether less restrictive treatment programs are available.

So the justices sent the case of Cedrick Scott Ince (INTS) back to Sibley County District Court for clarification. His lawyers say they'll argue he should be freed on intensive supervised release pending a final ruling. ..Source.. by STEVE KARNOWSKI

---

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Cedrick Scott Ince.
Court of Appeals.
1. The term “likely,” as used in the determination of whether a person is “likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct” under Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18c(a) (2012), does not indicate a defined numeric level of certainty or require that the fact-finder be substantially certain that the person will engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct. We continue to adhere to our previous construction of this provision, which requires evidence that the person is “highly likely” to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct. In re Linehan (Linehan III), 557 N.W.2d 171, 180 (Minn. 1996), vacated sub nom. Linehan v. Minnesota, 522 U.S. 1011 (1997).

2. The determination of whether an individual is highly likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct should be based on the multi-factor analysis for dangerousness prediction adopted in In re Linehan (Linehan I), 518 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1994), and all other evidence, including actuarial data, that the district court finds relevant and reliable. The relative weight provided to each Linehan factor and other evidence should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the district court.

3. Findings of fact that support the district court’s conclusions on the availability of a less restrictive treatment program must be sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

4. Because of the unusual nature of the facts and circumstances presented, a remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of this opinion is required to reevaluate whether appellant is highly likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct and whether a less restrictive alternative for treatment is available.

---