In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Rodger Dean Robb, II.

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1521

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Rodger Dean Robb, II.

Filed March 4, 2019
Affirmed
Ross, Judge

Judicial Appeal Panel
File No. AP17-9154

Jennifer L. Thon, Warren J. Maas, Jones Law Office, Mankato, Minnesota (for appellant
Rodger Dean Robb, II)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, R.J. Detrick, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Carolyn A. Peterson, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Hennepin County)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Ross , Judge; and
Slieter, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
ROSS, Judge
Rodger Robb was convicted five times for sexually assaulting boys over the course
of 17 years. The district court civilly committed Robb indeterminately as a sexually
dangerous person in 2000, and he has refused to participate in treatment since 2001. A
judicial appeal panel declined to hold a phase-two hearing on Robb’s recent petition for
2
discharge from commitment. Because R obb presented insufficient evidence to warrant a
hearing, we affirm.
FACTS
For 17 years beginning when Rodger Robb was 26 years old, he sexually assaulted
13 boys ranging in age from 10 to 17. Before the end of his prison sentence in 2001, the
district court found Robb to be a sexually dangerous person under Minnesota Statutes,
section 253B.02, subdivision 18c (1998) (current version Minn. Stat. § 253D.02, subd. 16
(2018)), and civilly committed him indeterminately to the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program. Robb has refused to participate in sex-offender treatment since 2001.
In 2017, Robb petitioned for a full discharge. A special review board denied the
petition. Robb appealed to a judicial appeal panel for rehearing under Minnesota Statutes,
section 253D.28 (2018). Robb called one witness at the hearing, court-appointed examiner
Dr. Sara Vaccarella. Dr. Vaccarella testified that Robb continued to pose a danger and to
need inpatient treatment. The Commissioner of Human Services moved to dismiss Robb’s
petition on the ground that Robb failed to present a prima facie case that he is entitled to
discharge. The panel granted the motion and denied Robb’s petition.
Robb appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Robb argues that the panel erred by dismissing his petition under Minnesota Rule
of Civil Procedure 41.02(b). We review de novo a dismissal of a petition for discharge
under rule 41.02(b). Larson v. Jesson, 847 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Minn. App. 2014).
3
Robb argues that he presented sufficient evidence to entitle him to a phase-two
hearing in front of the judicial appeal panel. To justify the hearing, Robb bore the burden
to present “a prima facie case with competent evidence” demonstrating that he is entitled
to discharge. See Minn. Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 2(d) (2018). If he had presented this
evidence, the burden would have shifted to the state to show by clear and convin cing
evidence that discharge should not be granted. See id. Robb relies on information in
Dr. Vaccarella’s report —specifically, risk-assessment statistics—and contends that this
meets his burden of production and entitles him to the requested hearing. This is not so.
Dr. Vaccarella did not merely produce risk-assessment statistics; she also
interpreted them in the context of Robb’s circumstances, and she determined that he
continues to pose a danger to the public and to need inpatient treatment and supervision.
We recently explained that uncorroborated assertions about risk- assessment statistics are
insufficient to make a prima facie case for discharge. In re Poole, 921 N.W.2d 62, 68–69
(Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 2019) . Robb’s citation to the statistics,
without evidence calling into question Dr. Vaccarella’s testimony interpreting the m, does
not establish a prima facie case justifying the requested hearing. Dr. Vaccarella put the
statistics in the context of Robb’s lack of participation in treatment, his lack of interest in
ceasing to sexually desire children, and his insistence that the boys he sexually molested
had actually consented to his behavior. Given that Robb offered nothing to challenge
Dr. Vaccarella’s interpretation of the statistics, he has not presented a case for discharge
warranting a phase-two hearing.
Affirmed.