In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Alexander Martinelli

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A26-0823

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Alexander Martinelli.

Filed September 21, 2026
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Commitment Appeal Panel
File No. AP24-9095

Lauren E. Pockl, Ethan Scrivner, Hennepin County Adult Representation Services,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant Alexander Martinelli)

Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Brittany D. Lawonn, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Hennepin County)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Brandon Boese, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Direct Care and Treatment Executive Board)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Rasmusson, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REYES, Judge
Appellant challenges the denial of his petition for discharge from civil commitment,
arguing that the commitment appeal panel (the CAP) clearly erred by finding that (1) he is
in need of treatment and supervision; (2) he remains dangerous; and (3) his continued
commitment bears a reasonable relation to the original reason for his commitment. We
affirm.

2
FACTS
In 1996, respondent Hennepin County petitioned for the civil commitment of
appellant Alexander Martinelli as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and as a sexual
psychopathic personality (SPP) after he was convicted of multiple criminal-sexual-conduct
offenses against adolescents. The district court indeterminately committed appellant as an
SDP in 1998. Appellant thereafter resided at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program
(MSOP) until 2017, when the CAP 1 granted his request for transfer. In 2022, the CAP
granted appellant’s request for provisional discharge subject to certain conditions and
regular contact with a reintegration agent. While on provisional discharge, appellant
completed outpatient sex-offender treatment and aftercare.
In 2023, appellant petitioned for full discharge from his civil commitment. The
Special Review Board (SRB) held a hearing and recommended granting the discharge
petition in June 2024. Both the county and the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department
of Human Services, now respondent Direct Care and Treatment Executive Board (the
board),2 petitioned for a rehearing and reconsideration of the SRB recommendation.
Two experts conducted interviews with appellant and provided reports to the CAP
with their recommendations: Dr. Kristine Doucette recommended denying appellant’s

1 “We refer to the entity formerly known as the supreme court appeal panel or judicial
appeal panel as the commitment appeal panel [the CAP].” In re Civ. Commitment of
Edwards, 933 N.W.2d 796, 797 n.1 (Minn. App. 2019), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 15, 2019).
2 “Effective July 1, 2025, the legislature transferred the authority to regulate MSOP and
secure treatment facilities from the Minnesota Department of Human Services to the Direct
Care and Treatment executive board.” In re Garnett, 38 N.W.3d 396, 399 n.2 (Minn. App.
2026).

3
discharge petition, while Dr. Thomas Alberg recommended granting it. Both noted
appellant’s diagnosis of “Other Specific Paraphilic Disorder, Hebephilia, In a Controlled
Environment” (paraphilia).
One day following these reports, appellant entered a thrift store and verbally
interacted with a five -year-old child and his parent. Appellant reported this to his
reintegration agent the next day. Appellant later agreed that the interaction violated his
provisional-discharge conditions, specifically the requirement that he “not have direct or
indirect contact with minors . . . unless approved in advance.”
Based on this violation, appellant voluntarily returned to MSOP for sixty days. See
Minn. Stat. § 253D.30, subd. 4 (Supp. 2025) (describing voluntary readmission process).
MSOP staff located “masturbatory aids” and condoms in appellant’s possession, neither of
which he had disclosed to his reintegration agent. Nonetheless, after sixty days, appellant
reentered provisional discharge. Both Dr. Doucette and Dr. Alberg submitted updated
reports and recommended denying appellant’s discharge petition.
The CAP held a hearing on appellant’s discharge petition and received testimony
from one of appellant’s friends, appellant, Dr. Alberg, and Dr. Doucette. After the hearing,
the CAP denied appellant’s discharge petition.
This appeal follows.
DECISION
Appellant challenges the CAP’s denial of his discharge petition, arguing that the
CAP clearly erred by finding that (1) he is in need of treatment and supervision; (2) he
remains dangerous; and (3) his continued commitment bears a reasonable relation to the

4
original reason for his commitment. After providing the standard of review and relevant
law, we address each of appellant’s arguments in turn.
“This court reviews a judicial appeal panel’s decision for clear error. . . .” In re Civ.
Commitment of Kropp, 895 N.W.2d 647, 650 (Minn. App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. June
20, 2017). “In this review, we do not reweigh the evidence as if trying the matter de novo.
If the evidence as a whole sustains the panel’s findings, it is immaterial that the record
might also provide a reasonable basis for inferences and findings to the contrary.” Id.
(citation omitted). We defer to a lower tribunal’s assessment of the credibility of expert
testimony. In re Civ. Commitment of Stone, 711 N.W.2d 831, 839 (Minn. App. 2006), rev.
denied (Minn. June 20, 2006). When “the findings of fact rest almost entirely on expert
testimony, the [lower tribunal’s] evaluation of credibility is of particular significance.” In
re Knops, 536 N.W.2d 616, 620 (Minn. 1995).
Under Minnesota Statutes sections 253D.01-.36 (2024 & Supp. 2025), a person who
is committed as an SDP may petition for a reduction in custody, including full discharge.
See Minn. Stat. § 253D.27, subd. 2. Following a petition, the SRB conducts a hearing and
provides a recommendation. Id., subds. 3-4. Then, the committed person, the county
attorney, or the board may petition the CAP for “a rehearing and reconsideration.” Minn.
Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 1(a).
The CAP then holds a hearing split into two phases. See Coker v. Jesson, 831
N.W.2d 483, 485-86 (Minn. 2013). In the first phase, the committed person bears the
“burden of production,” meaning that they must “present[] a prima facie case with
competent evidence to show that the person is entitled to the requested relief.” Id.

5
(quotations omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 253D.28, subd. 2(d) (describing committed
person’s burden). “If the committed person satisfies [their] burden of production,” they
move to phase two, at which “the party opposing the petition bears the burden of proof by
clear and convincing evidence that the discharge or provisional discharge should be
denied.” Coker, 831 N.W.2d at 486 (quotations omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 253D.28,
subd. 2(d).
Minnesota Statutes section 253D.31 (the discharge statute) states that, in order to
grant a discharge, it must “appear[] to the satisfaction of the [CAP] . . . that the committed
person is,” in relevant part, (1) “no longer in need of treatment and supervision” and (2) “no
longer dangerous to the public.”
I. The CAP did not clearly err by finding that appellant is in need of treatment
and supervision.

Appellant first argues that the CAP clearly erred by finding that he “continues to
need [(1)] treatment and [(2)] supervision.” These arguments are unavailing.
A. The evidence supports the CAP’s finding that appellant is in need of
treatment.
Appellant contends that the CAP (1) did not meaningfully analyze his need for
treatment; (2) conflated the possibility of “benefit[ting] from aftercare” with the “need for
treatment”; and (3) failed to find a need for “inpatient treatment.”
Appellant’s first contention is belied by the record. The CAP heard testimony from
two doctors about appellant’s need for treatment, found that Dr. Doucette’s testimony that
appellant is still need of treatment was more credible than Dr. Alberg’s testimony to the
contrary, and determined that “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that [appellant] has

6
not reached a point [at which] he no longer needs treatment.” We defer to the CAP ’s
credibility determination, which is supported by the record, and conclude that its finding
regarding appellant’s need for treatment is not clearly erroneous. See Stone, 711 N.W.2d
at 839.
We disagree with appellant’s second contention that the CAP erroneously relied on
Dr. Doucette’s statement that she “think[s] he would benefit from aftercare.” The CAP
considered a variety of testimony before reaching its decision. In addition to stating that
appellant would “benefit from aftercare,” Dr. Doucette also testified that appellant required
provisional discharge and that provisional discharge itself serves as treatment. The CAP
found all this testimony credible. Appellant does not reference these other statements, even
though clear-error review requires us to determine whether “the evidence as a whole
sustains the panel’s findings.” Kropp, 895 N.W.2d at 650 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s third contention that “Minnesota appellate courts have recognized that,
despite the 2018 amendment removing the word ‘inpatient,’ constitutional principles
continue to require a need for inpatient treatment to justify commitment” under the
discharge statute is forfeited. For support, appellant primarily relies on a nonprecedential
case that, as he admits, is not binding on this court and, more importantly, did not address
this issue. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c) (“Nonprecedential opinions . . .
are not binding authority . . . but . . . may be cited as persuasive authority.”). Appellant
also relies on cases that address the older, 2016 version of the discharge statute, which used
the phrase “inpatient treatment” instead of just “treatment.” Compare Minn. Stat.
§ 253D.31 (2016) (requiring person to be “no longer in need of inpatient treatment”), with

7
Minn. Stat. § 253D.31 (2024) (requiring person to be “no longer in need of treatment”);
see In re Civ. Commitment of Poole, 921 N.W.2d 62, 66, 66 n.2 (Minn. App. 2018), rev.
denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 2019); In re Civ. Commitment of Fugelseth, 907 N.W.2d 248, 253-
54 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 17, 2018). We conclude that appellant
forfeited this argument by failing to brief it adequately on appeal. Kropp, 895 N.W.2d at
653 (“Minnesota appellate courts decline to reach an issue in the absence of adequate
briefing.”) (citation omitted).
Because we defer to the CAP’s credibility determination, which is supported by the
record, we conclude that the CAP did not clearly err by finding that appellant is in need of
treatment. See Stone, 711 N.W.2d at 839.
B. The evidence supports the CAP’s finding that appellant is in need of
supervision.

Appellant also contends that the CAP clearly erred by finding that he is in need of
supervision because “[t]he supervision required by section 253D.31 must be clinically
necessary to prevent sexual harm, not merely helpful for reintegration.”
“Minnesota appellate courts decline to reach an issue in the absence of adequate
briefing.” Kropp, 895 N.W.2d at 653. Appellant failed to offer any substantive argument
about why the “supervision” contemplated by the discharge statute requires “clinical
necessity,” or what would constitute “clinical necessity.”3

3 Martinelli also relies on two cases, Fugelseth and Call v. Gomez, neither of which address
the meaning of the term “supervision” in the current discharge statute. See Fugelseth, 907
N.W.2d at 253-54 (focusing on meaning of term “inpatient treatment” in earlier version of
discharge statute); Call v. Gomez, 535 N.W.2d 312, 316- 17 (Minn. 1995) (addressing

8
The record supports the CAP’s findings. When asked if they believed appellant
required further supervision, Dr. Alberg and Dr. Doucette disagreed. Dr. Alberg testified:
“I think he probably doesn’t, but I think he needs to be able to demonstrate that.” Dr.
Doucette testified: “Yes. Based on his risk level, his dynamic needs, his recent revocation,
[and] some of his decision-making, I would say so, yes.” The CAP “found Dr. Doucette’s
opinion and analysis more specific and credible” on this issue. The CAP ultimately “found
clear and convincing evidence that [appellant’s] course of treatment and present mental
status indicate that he continues to need . . . supervision.”
Because we defer to the CAP’s credibility determination, which is supported by the
record, we conclude that the CAP did not clearly err by finding that appellant is in need of
supervision. See Stone, 711 N.W.2d at 839.
II. The CAP did not clearly err by finding that appellant remains dangerous.

Appellant next argues that the CAP clearly erred by finding that appellant remains
dangerous because (1) the question of dangerousness must focus on whether appellant is
“dangerous to adolescent[s]” and (2) appellant lacks “constitutional dangerousness” which
requires “proof of serious difficulty in controlling behavior.” We disagree.
As to appellant’s first argument, he cites one nonprecedential case that is not binding
on this court and not persuasive in this context. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd.
1(c). We conclude that appellant’s first argument fails.

burden-of-proof criteria for discharge of “persons committed as mentally ill and
dangerous” (citing Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 15 (1992))).

9
For his second argument, it appears that appellant conflates the requirements for an
initial civil commitment with the requirements for a continuation of civil commitment. 4
The supreme court has explained that a lack of control “is part of the threshold showing
that must be met to justify commitment,” but “[c]onfinement may continue without
meeting this threshold.” Call, 535 N.W.2d at 319 (emphasis added). Because binding
caselaw states that an ability to control sexual impulses does not in itself justify discharge,
appellant’s second argument fails. See id.
We conclude that the CAP did not clearly err by finding that appellant remains
dangerous.
III. The CAP did not clearly err by finding that appellant’s continued commitment
bears a reasonable relation to the original reason for his commitment.

Lastly, appellant challenges the CAP’s finding that his continued commitment bears
a reasonable relation to the original reason for his commitment, arguing that (1) he no
longer has a mental illness or, alternatively, he has control over his mental illness and
(2) the CAP’s analysis underlying its decision was “utterly lacking.”
5 We are not
persuaded.

4 To support an initial SDP commitment, the district court must find that the individual
“has manifested a sexual, personality, or other mental disorder or dysfunction” that “does
not allow [the person] to adequately control their sexual impulses.” Minn. Stat. § 253D.02,
subd. 16(a)(2); In re Linehan, 594 N.W.2d 867, 876 (Minn. 1999).
5 Martinelli also asserts that the CAP’s decision “violates due process,” but he cites caselaw
referencing the compliance of another discharge statute with due-process principles, and
he does not challenge the discharge statute here. Because h is assertion is inadequately
briefed, we decline to consider it. See Kropp, 895 N.W.2d at 653.
Respondent-board questions whether due process is a basis for discharge separate
from statute and asks this court to “issue a precedential opinion on this issue only,” citing
In re Civ. Commitment of Opiacha, 943 N.W.2d 220, 227 (Minn. App. 2020), and Call,

10
A. We defer to the CAP’s credibility determinations regarding appellant’s
diagnoses and remission status.

Appellant contends that either (1) his paraphilia has remitted or (2) even if not
remitted, he can control his paraphilia.
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant’s second argument here is the same
as his argument about control in the context of dangerousness, which we rejected above.
We conclude that this argument fails here for the same reasons.
The CAP heard testimony and received written reports from Dr. Alberg and Dr.
Doucette, both of whom diagnosed appellant with “Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder,
Hebephilia, In a Controlled Environment.” Dr. Alberg explained that “hebephilia” means
“[a]ttraction to teenagers.” An MSOP mental-health assessment also included this
paraphilia diagnosis and explained that “[t]he specifier [‘]In a Controlled Environment[’]
indicates that [appellant] currently resides in a supervised facility with limited
opportunities to engage in behaviors congruent with his sexual offenses.”
Dr. Alberg and Dr. Doucette disagreed in their testimony about whether appellant’s
paraphilia is in remission. Dr. Alberg testified that “we can consider [the paraphilia] in
remission” in part because appellant has “been in the community, he hasn’t acted on any
kind of situations where he’s been seeking adolescents.” Nonetheless, Dr. Alberg
acknowledged that appellant will “always” have symptoms of paraphilia, including an

535 N.W.2d at 319. Martinelli asserts in reply that this “issue was not raised below, not
briefed before the CAP, [and is] not necessary to resolve the case.” Because we agree with
Martinelli, we decline to consider this question for the first time on appeal. See Thiele v.
Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts generally do not
consider issues not presented to district court).

11
attraction to adolescents. Dr. Doucette testified that appellant’s paraphilia was not in
remission because “[t]here ha[ve] been indications that he’s reported continued sexual
interest in that age group,” including as evidenced by Dr. Alberg’s testimony.
The CAP noted that Dr. Alberg did not indicate in his reports that any of appellant’s
disorders were in remission. The CAP ultimately “found Dr. Doucette more specific and
more credible that the sexual disorder is not in remission.”
Because appellant’s diagnosis and remission status rests entirely on expert
testimony, we defer to the CAP ’s determination that Dr. Doucette credibly testified that
appellant’s paraphilia is not in remission. See Stone, 711 N.W.2d at 839.
B. The CAP’s analysis was not clearly erroneous.

Appellant contends that the CAP’s “reasonable relation analysis regarding
[appellant’s] disorders is utterly lacking, leading to conclusory findings that are counter to
the evidence as a whole.”
This argument is belied by the record and the discharge statute. The CAP order
included a one-paragraph “decision” section and an eight-page “[r]ationale” section. In the
decision section, the CAP explained that it found that appellant ’s “continued civil
commitment remains reasonably related to the reason for the initial commitment.” When
providing its rationale, the CAP analyzed the facts of the case, the testimony, and all the
evidence presented.
Furthermore, the discharge statute does not require any particular analysis when the
CAP denies a discharge petition but rather notes that a committed person “shall not be
discharged unless [certain factors] appear[] to the satisfaction of the [CAP].” Minn. Stat.

12
§ 253D.31. The CAP found that these factors were not all apparent and then denied
appellant’s discharge petition. Because “the evidence as a whole sustains the panel’s
findings,” we conclude that the CAP did not clearly err. Kropp, 895 N.W.2d at 650.
Affirmed.