N.D. Supreme Court hears challenge to district-court findings in Robert Huff's civil-commitment review

BISMARCK, N.D. ' The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral argument in appeal file 20250016 on whether the district court's finding that Robert Huff "continues to have serious difficulty controlling his behavior" is supported by adequate factual findings under Crane.

Tyler Morrow, counsel for appellant Robert Huff, told the court the appeal focuses on the Crane factor and that the state's evaluator, Dr. D'Orazio, "did not interview Mr. Huff" and "relied solely on a record review." Morrow said that reliance matters because the record includes an allegation of stalking that the appellant's team then tested: "We called the alleged victim of that stalking who testified she was never stalked by Mr. Huff. This did not happen," he said.

Morrow also stressed treatment and placement facts he said the evaluator lacked: he argued the evaluator did not know Huff's current treatment or security level and pointed out, as described in the record, that Huff is at the facility's highest treatment/secure level and "is allowed to have a cell phone and is the only individual at the North Dakota State Hospital in the secure setting area allowed to have a cell phone." He urged the court to treat routine rule infractions such as an "open mouth kiss" or staff notes about "rubbing his legs together" as insufficient to prove the kind of "difficulty, if not impossible," control the Crane standard contemplates.

"The state evaluator relied entirely on records, which we have now proven to be false," Morrow said, arguing the district court's one-paragraph Crane finding is conclusory and lacks factual support on key points such as relapse-planning, untruthfulness, and the nexus between disorders and the claimed inability to control behavior.

Isaac Lees, representing the State of North Dakota, responded that the appeal is limited to the Crane factor and that the appellant is attempting to relitigate credibility issues the district court resolved. "This is a conflict in testimony between witnesses," Lees said of Dr. D'Orazio's report and Ms. Koenig's testimony, adding that "the district court judges credibility" and the Supreme Court generally does not reweigh witness credibility on appeal.

Lees urged the court to apply established standards for adequacy of findings. He acknowledged the Supreme Court has remanded in some cases where findings were merely conclusory, but argued the district court here cited specific instances and explained how the antisocial personality diagnosis "feeds into" the infractions, providing a factual basis for the Crane determination.

Both sides framed the dispute against a string of prior state decisions the parties cited repeatedly (including Tague/RAS/JM and later decisions discussed in argument). Morrow argued those precedents required reversal here because the factual record is weaker; Lees argued the district court's order includes sufficient factual detail and that the Crane analysis necessarily involves a nexus between the disorder and the difficulty controlling predatory behavior.

Justices pressed both attorneys on where the district court relied on the contested facts, on whether inadequate findings should be remanded for additional findings or reversed outright, and on a pending district-court review that could render the appeal moot. Morrow said a later favorable district-court order would moot the appeal.

The court did not rule from the bench. Chief Justice (unnamed on the record) closed argument by thanking counsel and stating the case "will be taken under advisement."