In the Matter of G.R.H. John P. Van Grinsven, III, Ward County State's Attorney, and v. G.R.H., and

Summary

The court affirmed G.R.H.'s involuntary commitment as a sexually dangerous individual, holding that the statutory definition requires a nexus between the qualifying disorder and future dangerousness, which encompasses serious difficulty controlling behavior, and that the record satisfied this requirement by clear and convincing evidence. The court also held that the commitment scheme is civil rather than criminal for double-jeopardy purposes, and that assigning the executive director, rather than the court, responsibility for selecting the least restrictive treatment does not violate due process or double jeopardy because the statutory scheme provides substantial pre- and post-commitment safeguards. Justice Kapsner, dissenting, would have reversed because the evidence was insufficient to show that G.R.H. was likely to reoffend because of his antisocial personality disorder or had serious difficulty controlling his behavior.