Linehan, Matter of

• Decision Date: 30 June 1994
• Docket Number: Nos. C3-93-381,C8-93-523,s. C3-93-381
• Citation: 518 N.W.2d 609
• Parties: In re Matter of Dennis Darol LINEHAN.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 609

518 N.W.2d 609

In re Matter of Dennis Darol LINEHAN.

Nos. C3-93-381, C8-93-523.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 30, 1994.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 15, 1994.

Syllabus by the Court

The state has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that appellant meets the Pearson standard as applied to the Minnesota Psychopathic Personality Commitment Act; the commitment of appellant as a psychopathic personality is reversed and vacated.

Lisbeth J. Nudell, Minneapolis, and Eric S. Janus, St. Paul, for appellant.

Tom Foley, Ramsey County Atty., Steven C. DeCoster, Richard H. Hoffman, Asst. Ramsey County Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.

Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

KEITH, Chief Justice.

In this casewe again consider the Minnesota Psychopathic Personality Commitment Act, Minn.Stat. Secs. 526.09and526.10 (1992).Recently we focused on the constitutionality of the statute and found that it did not violate the substantive due process and equal protection guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.In re Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d 910(Minn.1994).We now address the reach and application of the statute.

AppellantDennis Darol Linehan, age 53, served nearly 20 years in prison for a kidnapping conviction arising out of the abduction and murder of a 14 year old babysitter in June of 1965.Shortly before appellant's scheduled release date in 1992, Ramsey County petitioned for his commitment as a psychopathic personality and as a chemically dependent person.After the initial commitment hearing, the trial court ordered appellant provisionally committed to the Minnesota Security Hospital (MSH).Upon receipt of the 60-day report from MSH and a second commitment hearing, the trial court found appellant to be a psychopathic personality and ordered that he be committed to MSH indefinitely.The petition for appellant's commitment as a chemically dependent person was denied.The court of appeals upheld appellant's commitment as a psychopathic personality.Matter of Linehan, 503 N.W.2d 142(Minn.App.1993).We granted appellant's petition for further review.

In State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, 205 Minn. 545, 287 N.W. 297(1939), aff'd, 309 U.S. 270, 60 S.Ct. 523, 84 L.Ed. 744(1940), this court narrowed the reach of the statutory definition of psychopathic personality to apply only to "those persons who, by a habitual course of misconduct in sexual matters, have evidenced an utter lack of power to control their sexual impulses and who, as a result, are likely to attack or otherwise inflict injury, loss, pain or other evil on the objects of their uncontrolled and uncontrollable desire."Id. at 555, 287 N.W. at 302.In Blodgett we determined that we should follow the Pearson definition and reverse cases that misapplied the statute as narrowed by that case.510 N.W.2d at 915.

As we noted in Blodgett, the burden is on the state to prove by clear and convincing evidence, each of the three elements set out in Pearson.See510 N.W.2d at 913-15.Appellant argues that the record fails to support, by clear and convincing evidence, the utter lack of control/uncontrollable element and the prediction of harm element of the Pearson test.We agree and reverse the lower courts.

Appellant has a history of involvement in the criminal justice system starting with bicycle theft at age 13.As a teenager appellant was placed in the State Training School at Red Wing and the National Training School in Washington, D.C. for various violations including taking indecent liberties with a 4 year old girl.On July 18, 1963 when appellant was 22 years old, he and two male acquaintances met 19 year old L.H. at a restaurant and invited her to a party.After L.H. got into the car with the three men, they drove to a field where appellant and one of the other men raped her.Criminal charges were brought and dismissed.

On the evening of June 10, 1965, appellant"window peeped" at the Shoreview, Minnesota residence where 14 year old B.I. was babysitting.Appellant loosened the exterior light to darken the entrance, knocked on the door, and told B.I. that someone in a nearby car wanted to talk to her.When B.I. opened the door, appellant took her from the house and placed her in his car with the intention of sexually molesting her.B.I. began screaming, hitting, and clawing at appellant.In an effort to quiet her, appellant hit B.I. several times, grabbed her by the throat, and choked her to death.Appellant hid B.I.'s body in a remote wooded area.He then moved the body to a dry well on the property of relatives.Later he hid the body in a shallow roadside grave.

In the latter part of July, the police investigation focused on appellant.Appellant pled guilty to kidnapping B.I. and the murder charges against him were dropped.He was sentenced to the maximum term of 40 years.Since B.I.'s murder, appellant has told numerous versions of the events surrounding her death.He, however, has never denied that he caused B.I.'s death or that he buried her body.

After B.I.'s death but before he was arrested for her murder, appellant committed two sexual assaults.While at a party in July of 1965, appellant grabbed W.L., age 22, forced her into a bedroom, and raped her.This incident was not reported to the police.A second assault occurred on July 15, 1965 when appellant went to a friend's house and got into bed with the friend's sisters, age 11 and 12.Appellant told the girls he had a knife and would stab them if they screamed.He licked the genital area of the older girl, M.J.When the younger sister ran out of the room, appellant went after her and then left the house.Appellant was in custody for this offense at the time he was implicated in B.I.'s murder.

Appellant escaped from prison on June 20, 1975.Eleven days later he was arrested in Niles, Michigan, for sexually assaulting 12 year old T.L. T.L. was hitchhiking with two friends when appellant picked them up and drove them to the beach.When T.L. left the beach alone, appellant pursued her.T.L. refused to get in appellant's car and ran away.Later, however, appellant found T.L., pushed her down an embankment, and jumped on top of her.Appellant told T.L. he wanted to have oral sex and intercourse with her and warned that if she screamed he would kill her.Appellant then put down his knife and tried to remove T.L.'s pants.The assault was interrupted when some people arrived on the scene.Appellant fled, but later was apprehended and convicted of attempted rape.

Appellant was imprisoned in Michigan from July 1, 1975 through September 26, 1980 at which time he was returned to the Minnesota State Prison in Stillwater.In October 1981, appellant was transferred to a prison in North Dakota for protective custody reasons.While there, he violated prison rules by buying merchandise, selling it to inmates, and charging interest.In October 1983he was transferred back to Minnesota.

While in North Dakota, appellant started a sexual treatment program, but dropped out before completing it.Although he started the program a second time, he was transferred back to Minnesota before he could finish.In 1988, appellant completed the Atlantis Inpatient Program for Chemical Dependency.He also participated in and completed the inpatient Transitional Sex Offender Program (TSOP) at Lino Lakes in May 1993 and was scheduled to enter the outpatient phase upon his release from prison.Appellant is on parole until August 21, 1997.He was paroled to MSH until his commitment "is resolved."

At the first commitment hearing, L.H., W.L., M.J., T.L., B.I.'s mother, and appellant's ex-wife testified about the assaults that took place in 1963, 1965, and 1975.Most of the testimony, however, came from four experts--Dr.Richard Friberg, Dr. Hector Zeller, Dr. Nancy Steele, and Dr. John Austin.

Dr. Friberg, a licensed consulting psychologist, interviewed appellant extensively on two occasions and briefly on two or three others.He also reviewed appellant's psychological test results and all available records at Lino Lakes.At the outset of his testimony, Dr. Friberg explained that listening to the lay witnesses "tipped [him] in the direction of saying"appellant met the "statutory definition" of psychopathic personality.

Dr. Friberg diagnosed appellant as an anti-social personality, a disorder unlikely to change.Although Dr. Friberg testified that when appellant is under the influence of alcohol he is "extremely impulsive, self defeating and prone to making major errors in judgment," Dr. Friberg described appellant as a "stable, intact and fairly controlled personality."Dr. Friberg testified that appellant's behavior resulting in B.I.'s death "reflected a much more planful, controlled, goal directed kind of a situation than [appellant] would like us to believe."Dr. Friberg felt that appellant"was trying to give us the impression that things kind of went haywire * * * when, in fact, * * * it was a fairly planful situation."

Dr. Friberg was never asked for his opinion as to whether appellant met the Pearson criteria and there is no evidence that he was familiar with Pearson's narrowing construction of Minn.Stat. Sec. 526.09.He acknowledged that the standard he used to identify appellant as a psychopathic personality was "whether or not Mr. Linehan is a psychopathic personality within the definition of the Minnesota statute."Moreover, many of the county attorney's questions and Dr. Friberg's answers mirrored the statutory language--"impulsiveness of behavior,""irresponsible,""dangerous," and "appreciates the consequences of his acts."

Dr. Zeller, the trial court's first appointed examiner, also based his opinion that appellant was a psychopathic personality on the statute, not Pearson.When the county attorney quoted the statutory definition and asked if appellant met the criteria, Dr. Zeller stated "I feel that almost each one of the conditions [set forth...