IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF C.E.G.Â SVP-452-07 (ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-4228-14T2

Appellant C.E.G. has been civilly committed under New Jersey's Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) since a 2007 final order; this is an appeal from a 2015 judgment continuing that commitment.
While incarcerated and at the Special Treatment Unit (STU), C.E.G. repeatedly refused to participate in treatment or to be interviewed for psychological evaluations.
A post-conviction relief (PCR) court vacated his 2005 New Jersey conviction for third-degree endangering the welfare of a child (EWC); he then pleaded to a disorderly persons harassment charge.
The State amended its commitment petition to rely on a 1995 Virginia conviction for attempted rape as the predicate sexually violent offense.
At the re-hearing, the State presented uncontradicted expert testimony (psychiatrist and psychologist) who, relying on records and prior evaluations, diagnosed paraphilic disorder and antisocial personality disorder and concluded C.E.G. remained highly likely to reoffend; C.E.G. presented no evidence.
The trial judge found by clear and convincing evidence that C.E.G. suffered from a mental abnormality/personal disorder making him highly likely to reoffend, and continued his civil commitment. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether vacatur of NJ EWC conviction changed circumstances requiring release	Vacatur of the EWC predicate removes basis for original SVPA commitment and undermines continued commitment	Vacatur of the NJ conviction does not alter the underlying facts; an out-of-state predicate (VA attempted rape) may sustain commitment	Court rejected changed-circumstances claim; affirmed relying on the Virginia conviction as a valid predicate
Whether evidence was insufficient to show SVP criteria (mental abnormality and high risk of recidivism)	Argued State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a sexually violent predator or poses sufficient future risk	State produced unrebutted expert testimony based on records showing paraphilic disorder, antisocial traits, refusal of treatment, and scoring indicating moderate-high recidivism risk	Court held evidence (experts' records-based testimony) met the clear-and-convincing standard; commitment continued
Whether technical defects (missing new certificates) or vacated conviction demanded reversal	Procedural defects or vacated conviction require vacatur of commitment	Where the totality of evidence clearly supports commitment, technical deficiencies or vacated NJ conviction are not dispositive	Court declined to vacate for technical certificate defects given substantial credible evidence supporting commitment

In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152 (2014) (describing standard of review and SVPA proof requirements)
In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (1996) (deference to trial judge’s factfinding in commitment cases)
In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (2002) (elements State must prove under SVPA)
In re Jobes, 108 N.J. 394 (1987) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re Civil Commitment of R.Z.B., 392 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 2007) (out-of-state convictions can serve as SVPA predicates when they correspond to NJ sexual offenses)
In re Civil Commitment of T.J.N., 390 N.J. Super. 218 (App. Div. 2007) (totality of evidence can cure technical deficiencies in commitment filings)