A man who pleaded guilty in a years-old sexual abuse case involving a child is challenging a court that had him committed to the State Hospital as a “sexually dangerous individual.”

The state will have 30 days to present specific facts on whether Danny Robert Nelson, born in 1962, is likely to “engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct” and “has a present serious difficulty controlling behavior,” the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled Friday. Those terms were used in a March 2016 order to have Nelson civilly committed to the North Dakota State Hospital.

listen live watch live

The appeal of the committal order by Nelson stems from several cases, including his 2009 sentencing in Ramsey County District Court for sexually abusing a young girl for five years. Nelson, formerly of St. Michael, N.D., was accused of having sexual contact with the girl beginning when she was 9 or 10 years old until she was roughly 15 years old, according to court documents. A complaint accused him of having intercourse with the girl an estimated 30 to 50 times, according to Herald archives.

Nelson pleaded guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child, a Class A felony. In exchange, a Class A felony gross sexual imposition charge was dismissed and he had to serve roughly six years and four months in prison.

In December 2014, the state asked Nelson to be civilly committed because he was “a sexually dangerous individual.”

Independent and state hospital doctors disagreed on whether that assessment of Nelson was accurate, with the independent doctor stating Nelson had “reasonable control” over his behavior and was not likely to engage in sexually predatory conduct.

Nelson argued the state didn’t give convincing evidence he was sexually dangerous. He said the lower court relied on his 2009 conviction and the state doctor’s testimony to have him committed. The state also said he broke into several homes, stole a pistol and took women’s undergarments.

The court agreed Nelson had taken part in past sexually predatory conduct, but the justices disputed the district court’s findings that determined Nelson was “likely to engage in further sexually predatory conduct,” stating the doctors’ testimony was conflicting.

The Supreme Court also ruled the lower court erred by “making no finding on whether Nelson has serious difficulty controlling his behavior,” stating past criminal history is not enough to determine if a person is sexually dangerous, according to the opinion.

The opinion didn’t expressly overturn the committal order, but instead concluded “the district court's findings are inadequate to permit appellate review.”

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court and ordered the state to present specific findings of fact in the case that would justify Nelson being labeled a “sexually dangerous individual.”