In re Commitment of Chester
2017 IL App (1st) 160979
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2007 the State petitioned to civilly commit Earl Chester under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (Act) based on a prior sexual assault conviction and psychological evaluations diagnosing paraphilia NOS (PNOS) and concluding a substantial probability of sexual reoffense.
- Multiple evaluations were performed over the years; trial eventually began in March 2015 with a jury empaneled.
- Before trial, Chester and the State executed a written stipulation: Chester waived jury and bench-trial rights and agreed the evaluators’ opinions established that he is a sexually violent person; the court canvassed Chester and accepted the stipulation.
- Chester later filed a pro se motion to vacate the stipulation claiming he changed his mind; defense counsel also argued withdrawal was warranted based on Chester’s mental condition and fatigue.
- The trial court denied the motion to vacate, found no evidence Chester lacked capacity to understand the stipulation, and committed him to the Illinois Department of Human Services for treatment; Chester appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Chester's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stipulations are permissible under the Act | The Act contains no procedure authorizing stipulations for commitment; stipulations should be disallowed by analogy to Mental Health Code cases | Civil proceedings generally allow stipulations; the Act’s silence does not bar them and stipulations are enforceable unless unreasonable, fraudulent, or against public policy | Stipulations are permissible in SVP proceedings under the Act; court affirmed acceptance of Chester’s stipulation |
| Whether court erred by not inquiring into Chester’s capacity / holding a fitness hearing before accepting stipulation | Chester claimed his mental condition affected his ability to comprehend and therefore the court should have held a fitness inquiry | Chester forfeited the argument by not raising it below; the Act does not require a fitness hearing and the record showed no incapacity | Issue forfeited; no statutory or record basis for requiring a fitness hearing; denial of motion to vacate affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Detention of Hardin, 238 Ill. 2d 33 (2010) (statutory construction principles governing review of civil-commitment statutes)
- In re Detention of Samuelson, 189 Ill. 2d 548 (2000) (distinguishing persons under the Act from Mental Health Code patients)
- People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455 (2005) (courts favor stipulations to simplify issues and conserve resources)
- In re Marriage of Tantiwongse, 371 Ill. App. 3d 1161 (2007) (stipulation enforceable unless fraudulent, unreasonable, or contrary to public policy)
- In re Michael H., 392 Ill. App. 3d 965 (2009) (holding respondents under the Mental Health Code may not waive entire involuntary-admission hearing; discussed but distinguished)
- Brink v. Industrial Comm’n, 368 Ill. 607 (1938) (parties will not be relieved from a stipulation absent clear showing that stipulation is untrue and timely application)
- In re Stephenson, 67 Ill. 2d 544 (1977) (mental illness is not a crime; cited in discussing distinctions between mental illness and mental disorder)
- Haudrich v. Howmedica, Inc., 169 Ill. 2d 525 (1996) (issues not raised at trial are forfeited on appeal)