from the District Court of Sheridan County, South Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.
Erickson, State's Attorney, Washburn, ND, for petitioner
Morrow, Grand Forks, ND, for respondent and appellant.
Raymond Voisine appeals from a district court order finding
he remains a sexually dangerous individual. He argues the
district court erred by (1) granting the State's request
for continuance, (2) not holding a hearing within 365 days of
the previous report or within a calendar year, (3) allowing
the State to file and rely on an expert's report that was
filed late, and (4) finding by clear and convincing evidence
that Voisine remains a sexually dangerous individual. The
dispositive issue is whether clear and convincing evidence
exists establishing Voisine remains a sexually dangerous
individual. We reverse.
"In 2004, Voisine was incarcerated after he pled guilty
to gross sexual imposition for acts involving a six-year-old
victim." Interest of Voisine, 2018 ND 181,
¶ 2, 915 N.W.2d 647. In Voisine, at
¶¶ 2-4, this Court discussed the underlying facts
leading to his incarceration and subsequent commitment as a
sexually dangerous individual:
"Voisine [was, at that time, ] a 65-year-old male with
four adult children, R.V., P.P., H.M. and L.K. In 2003, an
officer with the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal
Investigation executed a search warrant on Voisine's home
for an unrelated firearms charge. During the search, the
officer found sexually explicit photographs under the pillow
on Voisine's bed. The photographs pictured H.M., one of
Voisine's three adult daughters. DNA analysis was
performed and established with over 99.99 percent certainty
that Voisine fathered two children with H.M.
"In light of Voisine's incestuous relations,
interviews were conducted with his acquaintances.
Voisine's grandson reported that when he was 6 or 7 years
old, he was forced to stroke Voisine's penis for 5 to 10
minutes. The ex-husband of H.M. reported that Voisine
threatened him with a firearm and fathered a child with P.P.,
Voisine's adult daughter. Voisine's ex-wife reported
that Voisine beat and threatened her while they were married.
The current boyfriend of Voisine's ex-wife reported that
Voisine's children were sexually abused when they were
minors. Voisine's daughter, L.K., reported that she was
born to a 17-year-old mother who was impregnated by a
34-year-old Voisine. L.K. also reported that Voisine
physically abused her when she was young and that she once
walked in on Voisine unzipping his pants behind a naked and
bent-over H.M. L.K. later denied stating H.M. was naked.
"Following the investigation, Voisine was charged with
gross sexual imposition for sexual contact with his 6- or
7-year-old grandson and with promoting obscenity to a minor
for allegedly showing pornography to a second, 9- or
10-year-old grandson who was also Voisine's son. Voisine
pled guilty to gross sexual imposition, and the promotion of
obscenity charge was dismissed. He was incarcerated, and upon
his release in 2008, the State petitioned to commit him as a
sexually dangerous individual. The State alleged that in
addition to the sexual contact underlying Voisine's gross
sexual imposition conviction, that Voisine sired three
children with two of his daughters, that Voisine sexually
abused his daughters as minors, that Voisine conceived a
child with a 16-year-old girl in Maine and that Voisine
promoted obscenity to a minor by showing pornography to his
9- or 10-year-old grandson/son.
"After he was released from custody, the district court
revoked his probation for failing to complete sex offender
treatment while incarcerated. In a post-conviction
proceeding, his probation revocation was reversed.
Voisine v. State, 2008 ND 91, ¶ 17, 748 N.W.2d
429. The State petitioned to commit Voisine for
treatment as a sexually dangerous individual, which the
district court subsequently granted. This Court reversed and
remanded the case for further proceedings in
Voisine, 2010 ND 17, ¶ 15, 777 N.W.2d 908, and
after further proceedings summarily affirmed an order
committing Voisine for treatment. Interest of
Voisine, 2010 ND 241, ¶ 1, 795 N.W.2d 38."
The district court denied his subsequent petitions for
discharge from commitment, which were affirmed on appeal.
See Interest of Voisine, 2018 ND 181, ¶ 1, 915
N.W.2d 647; Interest of Voisine, 2016 ND 254, ¶ 24, 888
N.W.2d 781; Interest of Voisine, 2014 ND 178, ¶ 2, 859
N.W.2d 930; Interest of Voisine, 2012 ND 250, ¶ 1, 823
N.W.2d 786. This Court also affirmed a district court order
denying post-conviction relief. Voisine v. State,
2014 ND 98, ¶ 2, 859 N.W.2d 930.
On October 9, 2018, Voisine requested a discharge hearing. On
October 17, 2018, the hearing was scheduled for February 1,
2019. On January 30, 2019, the State requested a continuance.
Voisine objected to the continuance. On January 31, 2019, the
district court continued the hearing until March 25, 2019.
After the ...