In re Commitment of Haugen
2017 IL App (1st) 160649
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Kirk Haugen (respondent) had multiple prior convictions for aggravated criminal sexual abuse (1991, 1994, 2005) involving boys; State petitioned for commitment under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act.
- Two State expert psychologists (Dr. Arroyo and Dr. Weitl) diagnosed pedophilic/paraphilic disorders and testified respondent was "substantially probable" to reoffend, citing extensive criminal history, refusal to admit guilt, actuarial test results, and a penile plethysmograph.
- Respondent did not present witnesses; the jury returned a verdict finding him a sexually violent person and the trial court committed him to IDHS custody.
- Respondent appealed, challenging (1) sufficiency of evidence on substantial probability of reoffense, (2) denial of two special interrogatories, and (3) refusal to give an instruction that prior convictions alone cannot establish a mental disorder.
- The trial court denied the requested special interrogatories and the proposed instruction; respondent did not renew the instruction claim in his posttrial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: did State prove "substantial probability" to reoffend? | State: experts’ diagnoses, criminal history, actuarials, and other evidence suffice to prove "substantially probable." | Haugen: State failed to prove recidivism probability; urged a >50% recidivism requirement. | Court: Affirmed verdict; no >50% threshold required; weight of actuarials and expert testimony was for jury. |
| Special interrogatories: should the court have submitted Haugen’s two interrogatories? | Haugen: jury should be required to find specific mental disorders (pedophilic; other specified paraphilic). | State: interrogatories improper, confusing, and would unduly burden the State; statute does not require proof of specific disorder names. | Court: Rejected; interrogatories were codependent and not single, dispositive questions—properly refused. |
| Jury instruction re: prior convictions alone insufficient to establish mental disorder | Haugen: jurors should be told convictions alone are insufficient to prove a mental disorder. | State: instruction unnecessary or duplicative; trial court excluded it. | Court: Issue forfeited on appeal because Haugen failed to raise it in posttrial motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Detention of Hardin, 238 Ill. 2d 33 (definition of SVP statutory elements)
- In re Detention of Lieberman, 379 Ill. App. 3d 585 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- In re Detention of Bailey, 317 Ill. App. 3d 1072 (definition of "substantially probable" as "much more likely than not")
- In re Tittlebach, 324 Ill. App. 3d 6 (weight of actuarial evidence is for the trier of fact)
- In re Detention of Welsh, 393 Ill. App. 3d 431 (rejecting appellate reweighing of actuarial conclusions)
- People v. Smith, 177 Ill. 2d 53 (appellate court will not reweigh evidence)
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541 (special interrogatories control general verdict only if clearly irreconcilable)
- Zois v. Piniarski, 107 Ill. App. 3d 651 (special interrogatory must be single, direct, dispositive question)
- Northern Trust Co. v. University of Chicago Hospitals & Clinics, 355 Ill. App. 3d 230 (rejecting interlinked special interrogatories)
- People v. Kitch, 239 Ill. 2d 452 (preservation rule: must object and raise in posttrial motion to preserve instructional claims)