352 P.3d 921
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- Sanchez, an SVP, was committed to the custody of the Arizona Health Services after a 2003 verdict and affirmed commitment.
- In 2009 and 2012, Sanchez sought discharge or less-restrictive conditions; the court found progress and allowed conditional release to a treatment program.
- In July 2014, the court revoked the conditional release due to Sanchez’s admitted touching of a young girl and a polygraph indicia of dishonesty.
- This court vacated the July 2014 decision for failure to conduct a proper § 36-3713 hearing; following a multi-day hearing, the court again revoked conditional release and committed Sanchez to total confinement in December 2014.
- The appeal centers on whether the revocation was properly based on the required standards and admissible evidence under § 36-3713(C).
- The court reviews the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence and interprets the governing burden of proof as preponderance of the evidence for revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper burden of proof at a revocation hearing? | Sanchez argues for a higher standard (beyond a reasonable doubt). | State argues preponderance of the evidence suffices. | Preponderance of the evidence applies. |
| May hearsay evidence be admitted at a § 36-3713(C) revocation hearing? | Hearsay should be excluded for due process. | Hearsay is admissible if reliable under § 36-3713(C). | Hearsay may be admitted. |
| Is the therapist’s qualification to testify a constraint on revocation? | Therapist Balistreri lacks required credentials for testimony. | A competent professional, not a licensed psychologist/psychiatrist, suffices. | No specific credential required; competency standard satisfied. |
| Does Fifth Amendment privilege apply to SVP civil proceedings at a revocation hearing? | Statements could be compelled and self-incrimination concerns apply. | SVP proceedings are civil; privilege does not apply. | Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply. |
| Was polygraph evidence properly admitted and dispositive at the revocation hearing? | Polygraph results are unreliable and improper evidence. | Polygraph results were admitted by stipulation and properly used for treatment monitoring. | Admission was permissible; findings supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Commitment of Conn, 207 Ariz. 257 (Ariz. App. 2004) (SVP civil proceedings; non-applicability of self-incrimination protections)
- United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2005) (polygraph admissibility related to treatment, not directly controlling)
- Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (beyond a reasonable doubt standard in juvenile proceedings)
- Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (counsel and confrontation rights in juvenile proceedings)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1997) (SVP framework and due process considerations)