IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF A.D.(SVP-719-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-5145-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- A.D. pled guilty in 2005 to two counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault for rapes/attempted rape of three teenage girls in 2002; he was sentenced to concurrent 15-year terms (NERA) and committed to ADTC for treatment.
- ADTC and treating clinicians found A.D. admitted sexual arousal from exerting dominance and control, alcohol-linked impulsivity, and a pattern of coercive sexual behavior; ADTC recommended treatment and noted variable engagement.
- In 2015 the State petitioned for civil commitment under the SVPA, alleging A.D. is a sexually violent predator who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder making him highly likely to reoffend.
- At the SVPA hearing the State presented two experts (Drs. Harris and Zavalis) diagnosing paraphilic disorder (non-consent) and antisocial traits and concluding A.D. was highly likely to reoffend; A.D. presented Dr. Pirelli, who diagnosed paraphilic disorder but opined risk could be managed in the community.
- The trial court credited the State experts, found the SVPA statutory elements proven by clear and convincing evidence, committed A.D. to the Special Treatment Unit, and ordered annual review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (A.D.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of hearsay via experts violated due process | Hearsay was necessary background for experts’ opinions and supported their credibility assessments | Admission relied on inadmissible out-of-court statements and the court impermissibly based findings on that hearsay | Court acknowledged some hearsay reliance but found the experts principally relied on A.D.'s own admissions; hearsay did not undermine commitment conclusion |
| Whether the State proved A.D. is presently highly likely to reoffend | Experts showed mental abnormality/personality disorder and poor impulse control/antisocial traits that make reoffense highly likely | A.D. argued experts’ testimony did not establish present risk; his treatment progress and incarceration undermine predictions | Court found clear-and-convincing evidence supported present risk; trial judge credited State experts over defense expert |
| Proper weight to give competing expert testimony | State: Drs. Harris/Zavalis’ opinions are more persuasive given credibility and risk factors | A.D.: Dr. Pirelli’s opinion shows paraphilia controlled and community treatment feasible | Court gave greater weight to State experts based on record, treatment nonresponsiveness, and limits of Static-99R in this case |
| Whether court erred in finding A.D used a gun during one offense | State referenced victims’ reports about a weapon as part of factual background | A.D. denied weapon use and challenged reliance on that allegation | Court agreed it should not have made factual findings about weapon use based on hearsay, but found the weapon issue immaterial to SVPA elements and affirmed commitment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152 (2014) (SVPA requires clear-and-convincing proof of conviction, mental abnormality, and high likelihood of reoffense)
- In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (1996) (appellate review of SVPA commitments is narrowly circumscribed)
- In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (2002) (discussion of "highly likely" standard and control of sexually violent behavior)
- In re Civil Commitment of T.J.N., 390 N.J. Super. 218 (App. Div. 2007) (trial-court expertise in SVPA matters merits deference)
- In re Civil Commitment of A.E.F., 377 N.J. Super. 473 (App. Div. 2005) (trial court should not base factual findings on inadmissible hearsay)