Braylock v. Jesson

• Decision Date: 08 August 2012
• Docket Number: No. A10–1754.,A10–1754.
• Citation: 819 N.W.2d 585
• Parties: Ben BRAYLOCK, Appellant, v. Lucinda JESSON, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent, Hennepin County, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

819 N.W.2d 585

Ben BRAYLOCK, Appellant,

v. Lucinda JESSON, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent,Hennepin County, Respondent.

No. A10–1754.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 8, 2012.

Syllabus by the Court

Minnesota Statutes § 253B.19, subd. 2(d) (2010), as amended, may be applied to any nonfinal petition for discharge or provisional discharge from civil commitment under Minn.Stat. §§ 253B.18 and 253B.185 (2010), including a petition filed before the amendment's effective date.

Gregory R. Solum, Edina, MN, for appellant.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Jacob Kraus, Assistant Attorney General, Barbara Berg Windels, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN, for respondent Commissioner of Human Resources; and Mike Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Theresa Couri, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent Hennepin County.

OPINION

STRAS, Justice.

The question presented in this case is whether a statutory amendment to Minn.Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(d), effective on August 1, 2010, applies to appellant Ben Braylock's November 2008 petition for provisional or full discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous offender. Braylock argues that retroactive application of the amended statute to his petition is improper because the amendment introduced a new, higher burden for a petitioner seeking provisional or full discharge than the version of the statute that was operative when he filed his petition. The court of appeals affirmed the Supreme Court Judicial Appeal Panel's decision to deny Braylock's petition. We affirm the court of appeals.

I.

Appellant Ben Braylock is an 80–year–old, civilly committed, Level–3 sex offender. Braylock was convicted of burglary in 1968, second-degree murder in 1981, third-degree criminal sexual conduct in 1988, and first-degree criminal sexual conduct in 1991. In 2005, the Minnesota Department of Corrections, through the Hennepin County Attorney, petitioned the Hennepin County District Court to involuntarily commit Braylock as a sexually psychopathic personality (“SPP”) and a sexually dangerous person (“SDP”), as defined by Minn.Stat. § 253B.02, subds. 18b–18c (2010). SeeMinn.Stat. § 253B.185 (2010) (permitting the indeterminate civil commitment of persons classified as SPPs or SDPs). The district court granted the petition and ordered Braylock indeterminately committed as a SDP. In November 2008, Braylock petitioned the Special Review Board (“Review Board”) for a provisional or full discharge from his civil commitment. Minn.Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 4(c) (2010) (authorizing the Review Board to hear and consider petitions for full or provisional discharge from involuntary civil commitment). Respondents Hennepin County and the Commissioner of Human Services opposed Braylock's petition.

By statute, a person committed under Minn.Stat. § 253B.185 who seeks full or provisional discharge must first petition the Review Board for relief. Minn.Stat. § 253B.185, subd. 9; see alsoMinn.Stat. § 253B.18, subds. 7, 15 (2010) (describing the showing that a petitioner must make in order to receive a full or provisional discharge and the factors that the Review Board must consider in determining whether to recommend such relief). If the Review Board recommends denial of the discharge petition, then the committed person may petition the Supreme Court Judicial Appeal Panel (“Appeal Panel”) for rehearing and reconsideration of the Review Board's recommendation. SeeMinn.Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(b) (2010); see alsoMinn.Stat. § 253B.185, subds. 12, 18 (declaring that a discharge petition may not be granted unless the Appeal Panel is satisfied, after a hearing and recommendation by the Review Board, that discharge is appropriate). In proceedings before the Appeal Panel, the committed person “bears the burden of going forward with the evidence.” Minn.Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(d) (2010). If the committed person meets his burden, then the party opposing the petition “bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the discharge or provisional discharge should be denied.” Id.

In this case, the Review Board concluded that Braylock failed to satisfy the requirements for full or provisional discharge and recommended that the Appeal Panel deny Braylock's petition. Braylock then petitioned the Appeal Panel for rehearing and reconsideration of the Review Board's recommendation. Following an April 30, 2010, evidentiary hearing, the Appeal Panel issued its decision on August 6, 2010. The Appeal Panel concluded that Braylock failed to present sufficient evidence to meet his initial burden of production under Minn.Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(d). Based on that conclusion, the Appeal Panel denied Braylock's petition.

While Braylock's petition was pending before the Appeal Panel, the Legislature amended Minn.Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(d). Prior to August 1, 2010, the relevant portion of subdivision 2(d) stated as follows:

The petitioning party bears the burden of going forward with the evidence. The party opposing discharge bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is in need of commitment.

Minn.Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(d) (2008). In May 2010, the Legislature amended that portion of subdivision 2(d) in the following manner:

The petitioning party seeking discharge or provisional discharge bears the burden of going forward with the evidence, which means presenting a prima facie case with competent evidence to show that the person is entitled to the requested relief. If the petitioning party has met this burden, the party opposing discharge or provisional discharge bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is in need of commitmentdischarge or provisional discharge should be denied.

Act of May 10, 2010, ch. 300, § 27, 2010 Minn. Laws 747, 764. Because the Legislature failed to specify a different date, the amendment became effective on August 1, 2010. SeeMinn.Stat. § 645.02 (2010).

In March 2011, the court of appeals affirmed the Appeal Panel's decision. Braylock v. Jesson, No. A10–1754, 2011 WL 979051 (Minn.App. Mar. 22, 2011). The court held: “because Braylock failed to present a prima facie case establishing that he met the standards for either a provisional or full discharge, the Appeal Panel properly dismissed and denied Braylock's petition.” Id. at *7. In affirming the Appeal Panel's dismissal and denial of Braylock's petition, the court applied the amended version of Minn.Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(d), after concluding that the amendment merely “clarified the respective burdens of proof” in proceedings before the Appeal Panel. See Braylock, 2011 WL 979051, at *3 n. 1. We granted Braylock's petition for review on a single issue: whether amended subdivision 2(d), effective on August 1, 2010, applied to Braylock's petition for full or provisional discharge from civil commitment.¹

II.

In determining which version of Minn.Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(d), applies to Braylock's petition, the threshold question is whether the Legislature's amendment of subdivision 2(d) was merely a clarification of preexisting law or whether the amendment substantively changed the law. When the Legislature merely clarifies preexisting law, the amended statute applies to all future or pending litigation. See Nardini v. Nardini, 414 N.W.2d 184, 196 (Minn.1987); see also Rural Am. Bank of Greenwald v. Herickhoff, 485 N.W.2d 702, 708 (Minn.1992) (Simonett, J., concurring specially) (“If ... an amendment seeks only to ‘clarify’ the interpretation of the statute ... the [L]egislature is not changing its mind but is only making clear the legislative intent that was always there.”). If, on the other hand, the amendment changes preexisting law, the amendment is not retroactive unless the Legislature states otherwise. Minn.Stat. §§ 645.21, .31 (2010); Herickhoff, 485 N.W.2d at 706–07. Hence, if the amendment of subdivision 2(d) merely clarified preexisting law, the amended statute applied to Braylock's petition.

The Legislature's amendment of a statute creates a presumption that the Legislature intended to change the law. Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Perry, 749 N.W.2d 324, 328 (Minn.2008). The presumption is rebutted, however, if the Legislature intended only to clarify the law. See Frieler v. Carlson Mktg. Grp., Inc., 751 N.W.2d 558, 566 (Minn.2008); CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc'y v. Comm'r of Revenue, 647 N.W.2d 533, 540 n. 16 (Minn.2002). Determining whether an amendment is a clarification or a modification of preexisting law is a question of statutory interpretation, see Ubel v. State, 547 N.W.2d 366, 370 (Minn.1996), that we review de novo, see In re Estate of Butler, 803 N.W.2d 393, 397 (Minn.2011). In determining whether an amendment constitutes a clarification or modification of preexisting law, we compare the language of the pre-amendment and post-amendment versions of a statute. See State v. Niska, 514 N.W.2d 260, 264–65 (Minn.1994); see also, e.g., Krumm v. R. A. Nadeau Co., 276 N.W.2d 641, 644 (Minn.1979) (“A comparison of the language of the two versions demonstrates that the [amendment] was intended merely to clarify the [preexisting statute].”).

Here, the language of the pre-amendment and post-amendment versions of Minn.Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(d), demonstrates that the Legislature intended only to clarify preexisting law. Prior to the amendment, subdivision 2(d) provided, as relevant to Braylock's argument: “[t]he petitioning party bears the burden of going forward with the evidence.” Minn.Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(d) (2008). The amended version of the statute now provides:

The petitioning party seeking discharge or provisional discharge bears the burden of going forward with the evidence, which means presenting a prima facie case with competent evidence to show that the person is entitled to the requested relief.

Minn.Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2(d) (2010). A comparison of the two versions reveals that the amendment did not eliminate...