In re Detention of Hayes
2014 IL App (1st) 120364
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Lawrence Hayes, convicted of multiple kidnappings and rapes from 1980–1998, served lengthy prison terms and twice refused sex-offender treatment; State sought civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (SVP Act) in 2007.
- The State’s petition alleged Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified (PNOS), nonconsent; an attached evaluation also mentioned antisocial personality disorder.
- Trial was based entirely on expert testimony (Hayes did not testify or present experts); two State experts diagnosed PNOS (nonconsent) and antisocial personality disorder and relied on actuarial tools (Static-99R, MnSOST-R) to assess high risk of sexual recidivism.
- Experts concluded Hayes’s mental disorders affected his volitional capacity and made future sexual violence substantially probable; jury found Hayes a sexually violent person and the court ordered indefinite commitment.
- On appeal Hayes raised three issues: (1) variance between the petition and proof by reliance on antisocial personality disorder not pled; (2) admissibility under Frye of the PNOS, nonconsent diagnosis; and (3) the trial court’s refusal to give his proposed special interrogatories to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hayes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variance between petition and proof (use of antisocial personality disorder not pled) | Variance was not prejudicial; evaluation attached to petition referenced antisocial traits and Hayes had opportunity to cross-examine experts | Reliance on a diagnosis not alleged in the petition deprived Hayes of fair notice and was reversible error | Court found a variance but no prejudice; refusal to exclude evidence affirmed (no reversible error) |
| Admissibility of PNOS, nonconsent under Frye | PNOS, nonconsent is generally accepted in the psychiatric community; Frye hearing unnecessary given controlling precedent and judicial notice | PNOS, nonconsent is novel/controversial and required a Frye hearing before admission | Court held Frye applies to novel diagnoses but concluded PNOS, nonconsent is generally accepted; Frye hearing unnecessary |
| Special interrogatories (request that jury specifically find PNOS, nonconsent) | N/A (issue framed by Hayes requesting interrogatory) | Requested interrogatory was incomplete/misleading because State proved two disorders and experts said either alone could satisfy SVP Act | Court properly refused the interrogatory as incomplete and potentially misleading; refusal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (establishes general-acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
- People v. McKown, 226 Ill. 2d 245 (Illinois 2007) (judicial notice of prior decisions/technical writings may establish general acceptance)
- In re Detention of Hardin, 238 Ill. 2d 33 (Illinois 2010) (PNOS, nonconsent satisfied mental-disorder element at probable cause stage)
- In re Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill. 2d 523 (Illinois 2004) (standard of review for denial of Frye-based motion in limine is de novo)
- In re Detention of Melcher, 2013 IL App (1st) 123085 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (PNOS, nonconsent may be generally accepted; variance requires showing of prejudice)
- In re Detention of New, 2013 IL App (1st) 111556 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (variance between pleading and proof not material absent prejudice)
- In re Detention of Lieberman, 2011 IL App (1st) 090796 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (PNOS, nonconsent has been the basis for SVP findings)
- McGee v. Bartow, 593 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 2010) (diagnosis not so unsupported that it must be excluded absolutely)