In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of R.F. Svp 490-08
85 A.3d 979
| N.J. | 2014Background
- R.F., 17, pled guilty to two counts of endangering the welfare of a minor for sexual activity with a 12- and a 13-year-old; sentenced to five years at ADTC; before completion, State petitioned for SVPA civil commitment.
- SVPA petition contended RF suffered a mental abnormality or personality disorder making him highly likely to commit sexually violent offenses if released.
- Trial court (Judge Perretti) found predicate offenses and a personality disorder but did not find clear and convincing evidence RF was highly likely to reoffend; relied on RF’s expert’s view.
- Appellate Division reversed, holding the State’s experts’ opinions well-supported and the commitment warranted; panel adopted State’s framing of the record.
- Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the SVPA petition, stayed RF’s release for 30 days to allow a potential new petition, and remanded for discharge planning with CSL upon release.
- RF remains subject to discharge plan and parole supervision for life if released without SVPA commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved 'highly likely' to reoffend by clear and convincing evidence | State urged RF is high risk based on Harris and McCall diagnoses and risk tools. | RF argues the experts’ conflicts and Dr. Shnaidman’s low-risk assessment negate 'highly likely' standard. | No; the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the State failed to prove 'highly likely' by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether appellate review properly respected the trial court’s factfinding | Appellate Division affirmed based on record’s credibility and expert support. | Trial court’s factual findings were insufficiently supported; appellate panel should defer to trial judge. | Appellate Division overstepped; a deferential standard should respect trial court findings supported by credible evidence. |
| Whether RF’s predicate offenses and diagnoses suffice for SVPA commitment | RF’s endangering offenses plus expert diagnoses show risk. | Disagreement on pedophilia/paraphilia diagnoses and the weight of risk factors. | Predicate offenses and disorder found; but the third element (high likelihood of reoffense) not proven; RF not committed. |
| What is the proper disposition given RF’s cognitive impairment and need for services upon release | Disposal should preserve public safety via SVPA commitment or equivalent supervision. | RF should be released with CSL and discharge plan; confinement warrants excessive risk. | Remand to craft discharge plan and apply CSL upon release; potential re-petition allowed for changed circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (2002) (established 'highly likely to reoffend' standard and primary SVPA framework)
- In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (1996) (extremely narrow appellate review; deference to trial court in SVPA matters)
- In re Jobes, 108 N.J. 394 (1987) (clear and convincing standard explained; evidentiary threshold remains strict)
- In re Civil Commitment of J.M.B., 197 N.J. 563 (2009) (discussed SVPA purposes and due process in commitment analyses)
- Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002) (due process framework for distinguishing civil commitment of dangerous offenders)