2020 IL App (3d) 190024
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Warren C. Snapp Sr. was previously found a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and committed in 1999; he filed a third petition for discharge/conditional release and waived a jury.
- A bench trial was held in September 2018 after delays; the trial court concluded Snapp remained an SDP and remanded him to DOC custody.
- The statutory SDP elements require (among other things) that it be substantially probable the person will commit future sex offenses if not confined; the State must prove continued dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.
- Snapp appealed, arguing (1) the trial court failed to make the explicit “substantially probable” finding required by People v. Masterson and (2) alternatively that the denial was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The majority vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for a full rehearing because the court did not expressly state the substantial-probability finding; the dissent would have presumed the court complied with the amended statute and would have affirmed on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Snapp’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made the required explicit finding that it is "substantially probable" Snapp would reoffend if not confined | The State relied on the court’s SDP determination and evidence of risk; sought affirmance | Snapp argued the court never made the explicit substantial-probability finding as required by Masterson | The majority: vacated and remanded for full rehearing because the court failed to make an explicit substantial-probability finding; not harmless error |
| Whether the denial was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Evidence (per prosecution expert) supported high risk: long history of child sexual offenses, pedophilia diagnosis, risk scores, lack of treatment progress | Snapp contended the evidence did not clearly establish substantial probability of reoffense | The majority did not decide on sufficiency (remanded); dissent would have found the evidence sufficient and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Masterson, 207 Ill. 2d 305 (court must make explicit "substantially probable" finding in SDP commitment)
- People v. Bingham, 2014 IL 115964 (Masterson requires explicit finding; error may not be harmless)
- People v. Bailey, 2015 IL App (3d) 140497 (explicit finding requirement applies in recovery proceedings; remedy is remand for rehearing)
- People v. Donath, 2013 IL App (3d) 120251 (elements and manifest-weight standard for SDP findings)
- People v. Jordan, 218 Ill. 2d 255 (presumption that trial court knows and follows statutory law)