Cited by

the supreme court distinguished Rickmyer in a case in which the appellant was civilly committed as mentally ill and dangerous based on evidence that he penetrated the vagina of a young girl with his fingers, thereby causing “the removal of her hymenal tissue,” which “constitutes a serious physical injury,” thereby satisfying the statutory requirement of “serious physical harm.” -21 (Minn. 1995) (citing Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd.

A district court’s civil-commitment determination “must be justified by findings based upon evidence at the hearing.”

A district court’s civil-commitment determination “must be justified by findings based upon evidence at the hearing.”

A district court’s civil-commitment determination “must be justified by findings based upon evidence at the hearing.”

d 616, 620 (Minn. 1995).

If findings of fact “rest almost entirely on expert testimony, the [district] court’s evaluation of credibility is of particular signi ficance.”

“Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the [district] court to judge the credibility of witnesses.”

We refer to both entities as “Alpha.” 6 court’s evaluation of credibility is of particular significance.” d 616, 620 (Minn. 1995).

(“Where the findings of fact rest almost entirely on expert testimony, the trial court’s evaluation of credibility is of particular significance.”); (citing this aspect of Knops), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

3 light most favorable to the district court’s decision.”

See, d 914, 920 (Minn. 2019) (applying de novo review to a claim that challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that depended on the meaning of the statute); d 616, 620 (Minn. 1995) (stating that “whether evidence is sufficient to prove an overt act” as required by a statute “is a legal question and is subject to de novo review”).

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”).

On appeal from an order of indeterminate commitment, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and “[t]he record is viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision.” (appellate courts defer to district court’s assessment of conflicting expert opinions).

Generally, we limit our appellate review of a commitment decision “to an examination of the [district] court’s compliance with the statute,” and we consider whether commitment is “justified by finding s based upon evidence at the hearing.” In re Knops , 8

D E C I S I O N When reviewing a commitment on appeal, “[our] court is limited to an examination of the trial court ’s compliance with the statute, and the commitment must be justified by findings based upon evidence at the hearing.”

D E C I S I O N Civil commitments are governed by statute, and “[o] n appeal, this court is limited to an examination of the trial court’s compliance with the statute, and the commitment must be justified by findings based upon evidence at the hearing .” In re Knops , d 616, 620 (Minn. 1995); accord Minn. Stat. § 253B.18 (2018) (outlining review and procedure for commitment of mentally ill and dangerous persons).

P. 52.01 (stating that “[f]indings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous”); (same); see also Straus v. Straus , (noting that appellate courts defer to a district court’s resolution of factual questions presented by conflicting affidavits); Hestekin v. Hestekin , (citing this aspect of Straus).