IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF B.R., Â Â SVP-753-16(ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-0202-16T5
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- Appellant B.R. has a long history of sexual offenses against young boys (convictions in 1985, 2001, 2008), served ADTC treatment and parole/supervision terms, and was released on parole in 2006.
- In August 2016 the State filed for civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). B.R. refused evaluations in person; the State's experts (Dr. Harris, psychiatrist; Dr. Roquet, psychologist) performed forensic reviews of records and testified at the commitment hearing.
- Both experts diagnosed pedophilic disorder, noted escalation from noncontact to contact offenses, identified impulsivity/substance issues, and rated B.R. as high risk on the Static-99 (score 7).
- The experts acknowledged favorable ADTC treatment reports but concluded treatment did not mitigate current reoffense risk and that disorders would not spontaneously remit.
- The trial court found the experts credible, held the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that B.R. suffers from a mental abnormality/personality disorder and is highly likely to sexually reoffend, and ordered civil commitment to the STU.
- B.R. appealed, arguing (1) the court shifted the burden of proof to him because he declined interviews, (2) insufficient evidence of a current mental abnormality and present dangerousness, and (3) the experts relied on unadmitted documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (B.R.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court impermissibly shifted the burden to B.R. because he refused to be interviewed by State experts | Court commented that refusal deprived experts of information and suggested B.R. needed to show treatment mitigated risk; thus burden shifted to him | State contends burden remained on it; the court merely noted lack of interview did not relieve experts of their fact-finding and did not shift burden | No improper burden shift: court retained State's clear-and-convincing burden; noting refusal did not impose a duty on B.R. or alter burden was permissible commentary |
| Whether the State presented sufficient evidence of a current mental abnormality/personality disorder and present high risk of reoffense | B.R.: experts relied on past offenses and records, failed to account for successful ADTC treatment, so evidence of current dangerousness was insufficient | State: experts directly reviewed treatment records, considered favorable reports, used clinical judgment and Static-99 actuarial results to conclude disorder persists and current high risk exists | Sufficient evidence: experts’ testimony (diagnoses, explanation of treatment limits, Static-99 score) supported finding by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether expert testimony improperly relied on documents not admitted into evidence | B.R.: reliance on unadmitted records deprived court of proper evidentiary basis | State: experts testified about the documents they reviewed; there was no objection to testimony for that reason | Testimony about reviewed records was admissible and there was no objection; court relied on witness testimony, not admission of all documents |
| Scope of appellate review and deference to trial fact-finder | B.R.: asserts trial findings were unsupported and should be reversed | State: trial court’s credibility findings and factual conclusions deserve deference | Appellate review is narrow; trial court’s findings supported by credible evidence and are affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152 (discusses standard of review and SVPA requirements)
- In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (explains deference to trial fact-finder in SVPA cases)
- In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (defines mental abnormality/personality disorder standard under SVPA)
- In re Commitment of G.G.N., 372 N.J. Super. 42 (illustrates when expert testimony insufficient where treatment history ignored)
- In re Civil Commitment of D.Y., 218 N.J. 359 (reaffirms State’s burden of proof in SVPA proceedings)
- In re Civil Commitment of A.H.B., 386 N.J. Super. 16 (rejects benefit from refusing to cooperate with evaluators)
- State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (on appellate deference to trial courts)