Linehan, Matter of

• Decision Date: 12 December 1996
• Docket Number: No. C1-95-2022,C1-95-2022
• Citation: 557 N.W.2d 171
• Parties: In re the Matter of Dennis Darol LINEHAN.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 171

557 N.W.2d 171

In re the Matter of Dennis Darol LINEHAN.

No. C1-95-2022.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 12, 1996.

Syllabus by the Court

1.Commitment under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, Minn.Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18b(a)(3)(1994), requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed patient is highly likely to engage in harmful sexual conduct in the future.

2.As applied to the appellant, civil commitment for treatment under the SDP Act does not violate substantive due process under the Minnesota or United States Constitutions.

3.Civil commitment for treatment under the SDP Act does not violate equal protection rights under the Minnesota or United States Constitutions of persons who have engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct, are highly likely to engage in harmful sexual conduct, and suffer from a mental disorder.

4.Because the purpose and effect of the SDP Act is to treat sexually dangerous predators for the mental disorders that make such persons dangerous, the Act is not so punitive that constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws or double jeopardy apply.

5.The district court did not clearly err in concluding that clear and convincing evidence supported the initial commitment of the appellant.Minn.Stat. §§ 253B.18, subd. 1,253B.185, subd. 1.

Lisbeth J. Nudell, Minneapolis, Michael F. Cromett, St. Paul, Eric S. Janus, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Daniel Homstad(Kathleen Milner, of counsel, Minnesota Civil Liberties Union), Minneapolis, for amicus curiae.

Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark Nathan Lystig, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, St. Paul, for respondentRamsey County.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, John L. Kirwin, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, for respondent State.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

KEITH, Chief Justice.

AppellantDennis Darol Linehan was civilly committed under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act on July 27, 1995 at the age of 54 after spending most of his life in the criminal justice system for sex-related crimes.SeeAct ofAugust 31, 1994, ch. 1, art. 1, 1995 Minn. Laws 5, 5-9 (1994 first special session), codified in relevant part at Minn.Stat. §§ 253B.02, subd. 18b,253B.185 (1994)(SDP Act).The district court concluded that the application of the Act to Linehan was constitutional and found that: (1) Linehan had engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct; (2) Linehan suffers from an antisocial personality disorder (APD); and, as a result, (3) it is "highly probable" that Linehan will engage in harmful sexual conduct in the future.The court of appeals affirmed Linehan's initial commitment.In re Linehan, 544 N.W.2d 308, 319(Minn.App.1996)(Linehan II ).

Linehan contends that the commitment violates his constitutional rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions, and his rights against ex post facto laws and double jeopardy under the United States Constitution.Linehan also argues that if the commitment is constitutional, then the district court clearly erred in finding that it is highly probable that he will engage in harmful sexual conduct in the future and that this probability is a result of his past conduct and his APD.Linehan does not dispute that he has APD or that he once engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct.Rather, he challenges the district court's method of prediction and the specificity of the court's findings.

We conclude that Linehan's initial commitment did not violate his constitutional rights, nor did the district court clearly err in evaluating the evidence; therefore, we affirm.

I.Facts and Procedural History

Linehan was sexually and physically abused as a child and he began a record of sexual misconduct in his teens.In 1956, at age 15, Linehan pulled down the shorts of a 4-year-old girl and was sent to reform school.In 1960, at age 19, he had intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.In 1963, Linehan engaged in window peeping.Later that year, he and a friend raped L.H.On June 10, 1965, after window peeping, Linehan killed B.I. while attempting to sexually assault her.Before being arrested for B.I.'s death, Linehan committed two additional sexual assaults--including rape--in July of 1965.Linehan pleaded guilty to kidnapping B.I. and the murder charges against him were dropped.He was sentenced to a maximum term of 40 years and began serving time at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Stillwater.Linehan's sentence expires on August 21, 1997.

Linehan escaped from Stillwater's minimum security facility on June 20, 1975, and 11 days later he assaulted 12-year-old T.L. in a ditch off the side of a Michigan road.He was convicted of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct and imprisoned in Michigan.Linehan was returned to Stillwater prison 5 years later.He remained at Stillwater for most of the next 12 years.

On December 30, 1992, Linehan was committed to the Minnesota Security Hospital (MSH) under the Psychopathic Personality Commitment Act (PP Act).SeeMinn.Stat. §§ 526.09-.10(1992)(current version at Minn.Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18a(1994)).However, Linehan's PP Act commitment was vacated by this court on June 30, 1994.In re Linehan, 518 N.W.2d 609, 614(Minn.1994)(Linehan I ).We held that Ramsey County failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Linehan was utterly unable to control his sexual impulses.Id.The "utter inability" element of proof under the PP Act was established when the statute was narrowed in State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, 205 Minn. 545, 555, 287 N.W. 297, 302(1939)(upholding the statute against, inter alia, a vagueness challenge), aff'd, 309 U.S. 270, 277, 60 S.Ct. 523, 527, 84 L.Ed. 744(1940).

On August 18, 1994, after the reversal of his PP Act commitment and his discharge from MSH, Linehan was paroled to Residence 4 on the grounds of the Stillwater correctional facility.Residence 4 was converted to a halfway house for Linehan because no other facility would accept him.At the halfway house, Linehan was under "intensive supervised release."Residence 4 was equipped with phone taps (of which Linehan was notified) and hidden video surveillance cameras.Linehan was also subject to drug testing.Linehan continued his treatment as a sex offender at Residence 4.He began participating in the Atlantis outpatient sex offender program after completing the inpatient Transitional Sex Offender Program (TSOP).Atlantis conducted group therapy sessions at Residence 4 for Linehan and other sex offenders.

On August 31, the Minnesota Legislature met in special session and amended the civil commitment statute to include "sexually dangerous persons."Act of August 31, 1994, ch. 1, art. 1, 1995 Minn. Lawsat 5-9.A "sexually dangerous person" has engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct; suffers from a sexual, personality, or other mental disorder or dysfunction; and, as a result, is likely to engage in serious and harmful sexual conduct in the future.Minn.Stat. § 253B.02, subds. 7a, 18b(a)(1994).Commitment under the SDP Act does not require proof that the proposed patient is unable to control his or her sexual impulses.Id.§ 253B.02, subd. 18b(b).On September 2, respondentRamsey County petitioned for Linehan's commitment under the SDP Act.

The district court denied Linehan's motion to dismiss the petition based on as-applied constitutional challenges, and the court of appeals later affirmed.Linehan II, 544 N.W.2d at 317-19.Both courts concluded that APD is a mental disorder that the state may use to trigger civil commitment of dangerous persons; that the legislature had adequate reasons for applying civil commitment to sexually dangerous persons with APD but not to those without a mental disorder or dysfunction; and that the purpose and effect of the SDP Act is treatment, not punishment.The court of appeals correctly placed the burden of persuasion on the state regarding the substantive due process and equal protection challenges.SeeIn re Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d 910, 914, 916-17(Minn.1994);Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299, 312(Minn.1993).

In its opinion, the district court interpreted the SDP Act to require proof that it is "highly probable" that the proposed patient will sexually harm others in the future, even though the statute refers to "likely" future harm.Minn.Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18b(a)(3).The court relied on the clear and convincing evidence standard for such commitments, due process concerns, and the seriousness of the proceedings.The court of appeals agreed with the district court's interpretation, and described the standard for prediction as "highly likely."Linehan II, 544 N.W.2d. at 313-14.

Much of the initial commitment hearing was devoted to expert testimony.¹ After hearing from Stillwater personnel and three of Linehan's victims, the county's case focused on two expert witnesses.Dr. Michael Millard testified that Linehan suffers from alcohol dependence (in remission), impulse control disorder, and APD.He also concluded that Linehan is very likely to reoffend, based on Department of Justice(DOJ) base rate statistics and five multi-factor violence prediction checklists derived from various studies.

Dr. Douglas Fox also testified in favor of commitment.Although he did not examine Linehan, Dr. Fox concluded from written records that Linehan meets the criteria for APD, paraphilia (not otherwise specified), alcohol dependence (by history), and voyeurism (by history) according to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. 1994)(DSM-IV ).Dr. Fox acknowledged, however, that Linehan is not "mentally ill," as he understood the term.Dr. Fox relied primarily on DOJ base rates for rearrests and the factors in Linehan I, 518 N.W.2d at 614, to conclude that Linehan is dangerous.

Linehan's...