Matter of Hehn
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: A district court order denying discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2016 ND 242
In the Matter of Darl John Hehn Jonathan Byers, Special Assistant State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
Darl John Hehn, Respondent and Appellant
No. 20160213
Appeal from the District Court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial
District, the Honorable Daniel D. Narum,
Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Jonathan R. Byers, Special Assistant State's Attorney,
Office of the Attorney General, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Department 125, Bismarck, N.D.
58505-0040, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.
Jonathan L. Green, 522 Dakota Avenue, Suite 1,
Wahpeton, N.D. 58075, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.
Matter of HehnNo. 20160213Per
Curiam.[¶1] Darl Hehn appeals from a district court order finding
he is a sexually dangerous individual and denying him discharge from civil commitment. Hehn
argues the State Hospital's failure to provide him treatment for his underlying borderline
personality disorder violates his statutory right to treatment, his right to substantive due process,
and his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. However, the record reflects Hehn is
being treated for borderline personality disorder. Hehn argues the State's expert's "SDI Annual
Re-evaluation" report should have been excluded from evidence as inadmissible hearsay because
it relied in part on another expert's report who was not present to testify at the discharge hearing.
However, Hehn waived this argument by declining a continuance until the expert would be
available to testify at the hearing. See, e.g., Sahagian v. Murphy, 871 F.2d 714,
716 (7th Cir. 1989); State v. Bagshaw, 51 P.3d 427, 430-31 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002);
see generally In re D.Z., 2002
ND 132, ¶ 5, 649 N.W.2d 231. Hehn
argues the court erred in finding he is a sexually dangerous individual. We conclude the court's
findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).[¶2] Gerald W.
VandeWalle, C.J.
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Lisa Fair McEvers
Daniel J.
Crothers
Dale V. Sandstrom
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.