IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF C.F., SVP-690-14(ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORDIMPOUNDED)
A-1554-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- C.F. has prior sexual-offense convictions (1985: sexual assault of a cognitively limited adult; later sexual assault of a 7-year-old) and admitted to molesting multiple victims from 1981–1989.
- Multiple institutional placements (ADTC, AKFC, TPH) with treatment attempts since 1990 but persistent disciplinary incidents, limited treatment progress, and documented sexually deviant behavior while confined.
- Recent clinical findings: high reported sexual arousal (self-reported 10/10 in 2013), admissions of continued deviant fantasies/urges, and incidents at TPH (inappropriate touching, expressed urge to rape a pregnant patient).
- State filed for civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA); C.F. was temporarily committed and a final hearing occurred October 23, 2014.
- State presented expert testimony/reports (Dr. Roger Harris, M.D.; Dr. Christine E. Zavalis, Psy.D.) diagnosing pedophilic disorder and personality/psychotic disorders, using actuarial tools (Static-99) and concluding a high likelihood of reoffense.
- Trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, C.F. met SVPA requirements and ordered commitment to the Special Treatment Unit (STU); appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.F.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State proved SVPA commitment elements by clear and convincing evidence | State failed to meet burden to show mental abnormality and high likelihood to reoffend | Expert testimony and records show mental abnormalities, poor volitional control, and high risk to reoffend | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported commitment |
| Reliance on decades-old convictions to justify commitment | Commitment improperly driven by remote convictions | Court relied on entire history, recent behavior, admissions, and expert evaluations, not convictions alone | Affirmed: court considered post-offense history and recent risk indicators |
| Admissibility and weight of expert testimony that relied on hearsay/records | Experts’ reliance on hearsay rendered testimony unfair | Experts may reasonably rely on records/hearsay under N.J.R.E. 703 and corroborated independent evaluations | Affirmed: experts’ use of records was proper and did not violate due process |
| Credibility of experts vs. C.F.’s testimony claiming rehabilitation | C.F. testified to behavioral changes and willingness to continue community treatment | Experts found minimal treatment progress, persistent arousal/impulsivity, and high reoffense risk | Affirmed: trial court credited State experts over C.F. because findings were supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (N.J. 1996) (standard and deference for appellate review of commitment determinations)
- In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152 (N.J. 2014) (trial-court deference in SVPA proceedings; judges as specialists)
- In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (N.J. 2002) (elements required for SVPA commitment)
- In re Commitment of G.G.N., 372 N.J. Super. 42 (App. Div. 2004) (limits on relying solely on past convictions for commitment)
- In re Civil Commitment of J.H.M., 367 N.J. Super. 599 (App. Div. 2004) (permissible expert reliance on hearsay/records under N.J.R.E. 703)
- Baldyga v. Oldman, 261 N.J. Super. 259 (App. Div. 1993) (expert testimony may confirm opinions reached independently)
- State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (N.J. 1964) (standard for disturbing trial-court findings)