In re Detention of New
2014 IL 116306
| Ill. | 2014Background
- Petition to commit John New, Jr. as a sexually violent person under the Act; diagnosis of paraphilia NOS, sexually attracted to adolescent males (hebephilia) offered by State experts.
- Defense moved to bar expert testimony as Frye-inappropriate; argued hebephilia not generally accepted and not properly grounded in DSM/psychiatric standards.
- Experts Fogel and Brucker diagnosed paraphilia NOS with attraction to adolescent males; relied on DSM-IV-TR; deemed high risk of future violence.
- Expert Witherspoon disputed the diagnosis, arguing such attraction is statistical norm and not a generally accepted mental disorder.
- Appellate court held the diagnosis potentially novel and subject to Frye; remanded for Frye hearing; DSM-5 rejection of hebephilia discussed.
- Illinois Supreme Court held hebebphilia diagnosis is subject to Frye and that judicial notice is inadequate to establish general acceptance; remanded for Frye hearing to determine general acceptance and, if necessary, a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Frye hearing is required for a diagnosis of hebephilia in civil commitment. | State contends Frye not required; DSM-based methods are accepted. | New argues diagnosis is novel and not generally accepted; Frye hearing necessary. | Yes; Frye hearing required. |
| Whether hebephilia is generally accepted as a mental condition such that Frye is satisfied by judicial notice. | State argues literature shows general acceptance. | New shows literature and DSM-5 rejection undermine general acceptance. | Not established by judicial notice; Frye hearing needed. |
| Whether DSM-5 rejection of hebephilia affects judicial notice of its general acceptance. | State relies on DSM-based sources to show acceptance. | DSM-5 rejection undermines acceptance. | DSM-5 rejection undermines, cannot rely on judicial notice. |
| Whether prior cases validating paraphilia NOS diagnoses support general acceptance of this diagnosis. | State cites several cases permitting paraphilia NOS findings. | Those cases do not address this specific hebephilia diagnosis. | Not controlling; cannot judicially notice general acceptance. |
| What is the appropriate disposition given Frye issue and lack of conclusive general acceptance evidence? | Remand to determine acceptance and, if necessary, retrial. | Remand for Frye hearing and possible new trial. | Appellate judgment affirmed; remand for Frye hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Simons, 213 Ill. 2d 523 (2004) (Frye standard applied to scientific evidence in civil commitment context)
- Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., 199 Ill. 2d 63 (2002) (Frye test focuses on underlying scientific principle, not ultimate conclusion)
- In re Marriage of Alexander, 368 Ill. App. 3d 192 (2006) (Frye applicability to expert opinion based on observation vs. science)
- McKown v. Bar, 226 Ill. 2d 245 (2007) (general acceptance and Frye step in evidentiary gatekeeping)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) (distinction for civil commitment based on recognized mental disorder)