Cited by

Commitment of Ince, (“[T]he district court is in the best position to weigh the evidence and assess credibility .

Commitment of Ince, but when the district court’s findings are not sufficient for meaningful appellate review, we may remand for further findings, (“[R]emand is the appropriate remedy when the district court has made insufficient findings to enable 9 appellate

Commitment of Ince, We note that Minnesota Statutes section 253B.12 provides that the treatment report required for a committed patient who remains in treatment for more than 60 days must set forth the patient’s “diagnosis.” 10 26 (Minn. 2014) (reversing and remanding for findings i

Commitment of Ince, (stating that a fact-finder is in the best position to “weigh the evidence and assess credibility”).

Commitment of Ince, , and defers to a district court’s credibility determinations, In re Civ.

Commitment of Ince, Danielson, d at 37 ().

Commitment of Ince, -24 (Minn. 2014).

Commitment of Ince, - 22 (Minn. 2014).

Commitment of Ince, -22 (Minn. 2014).

Under that standard, appellate courts review a district court’s factual findings for clear error “to determine whether they are supported by the record as a whole,” and defer to a district court’s credibility determinations, In re Stone , rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).

-24 (Minn. 2014) (“As the trier of fact, the district court [is] in the best position .

Commitment of Ince, -26 (Minn. 2014) (analyzing whether the evidence supported the district court’s finding on the availability of a less-restrictive alternative to MSOP); (“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings for 15 clear error.”).

Commitment of Ince, -24 (Minn. 2014).

Commitment of Ince, - 3 We note that the Alpha director’s testimony regarding a less-restrictive treatment program speaks to the availability and appropriateness of such a program, and not the statutory criteria for commitment as an SDP or an SPP.

Commitment of Ince, (reaffirming that the word “likely” in the third criterion of the SDP statute is to be interpreted as meaning “highly likely”).

To determine whether a person is highly likely to reoffend, a district court must conduct a “multi-factor analysis.” In re Civil Commitment of Ince , - 22 (Minn. 2014).

Commitment of Ince, -22 (Minn. 2014).

Commitment of Ince, In re Civ.

Commitment of Ince , -24 (Minn. 2014) (“As the trier of fact, the distri ct court will be in the best position .

Commitment of Ince , (stating that a fact finder is in the best position to “weigh the evidence and assess credibility” ); In re Knops , (affording “due regard” to the factfinder’s opportunity to “judge the credibility of the witnesses”).

See In re Civil Commitment of Ince , (stating that judicial construction of a statute becomes “part of the statute as though written therein” (quotation statute, reasoning that it comported with Jarvis’s mandate, d at 827 -28.

“In order to commit someone as [an SDP], the district court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the person: (1) has engaged in a course of harmful sexual conduct; (2) has manifested a sexual, person ality, or other mental disorder or dysfunction; and (3) as a result, is likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct.” In re Civil Commitment of Ince , see also Minn. Stat. § 253D.02, subd.

In re Civil Commitment of Ince

In re Civil Commitment of Ince

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error based on the record as a whole, and defer to the court’s credibility determinations , Knops, d at 620.

15 (requiring proof that the person has “an utter lack of power to control the person’s sexual impulses ” for SPP commitment), 16(3) (requiring proof that the person is “likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct” for SDP commitment); -21 (Minn. 2014) ( discussing the difficulty of defining and proving this predictive element).

The supreme 12 court has held that the term “lik ely” as used in the determinat ion of whether a person is likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct, means “high ly likely.”