IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF E.B. (SVP-724-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-2404-15T5
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Appellant E.B., previously convicted of sexual assaults in 1992 and 2002, was released from the ADTC in 2008 after treatment; ADTC clinicians noted clinical progress but objective testing indicated high risk and recommended he avoid children.
- From 2009–2014 police reports alleged E.B. contacted or attempted contact with multiple adolescent girls; only one incident (calling out to a girl from a van) resulted in an admission and a plea for violating Community Supervision for Life in 2014.
- While incarcerated on the CSL violation, E.B. scored +6 on Static-99, prompting a civil SVPA commitment petition.
- At the 2016 SVPA hearing the State presented two experts (a psychiatrist and a psychologist) who diagnosed paraphilia toward teenage girls and antisocial personality disorder and relied heavily on the post-release police reports to opine high risk of sexual reoffense.
- The trial court committed E.B. to the STU under the SVPA, finding clear and convincing evidence of a mental abnormality/personality disorder and a high likelihood of reoffense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (E.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence E.B. is a sexually violent predator | Experts established diagnoses and high risk of reoffense based on convictions, testing (Static-99, PCL-R) and post-release contacts | Experts relied on unproven, unreliable police allegations; reliance on those allegations and inadequate basis for antisocial PD undermines clear and convincing proof | Reversed and remanded: experts impermissibly relied on unsubstantiated allegations that were significant to their opinions, so commitment unsupported by competent evidence |
| Admissibility/weight of experts' reliance on police reports | Police reports are relevant background for risk assessment | Unproven allegations cannot be the "significant building blocks" of an expert opinion supporting SVPA commitment | Court held reliance on unproven allegations that materially supported the opinions was improper and required new hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (recognition of SVPA standards for civil commitment)
- In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152 (appellate review of SVPA commitments is narrow; deference to trial court)
- In re Civil Commitment of A.E.F., 377 N.J. Super. 473 (App. Div.) (expert opinions cannot rest on unproven allegations that materially support commitment)
- In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (standard for modifying trial-court factual findings on review)
- Williams v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 336 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div.) (opinions relying on inaccurate or disputed facts undermine evidentiary value)