246 A.3d 219
N.J.2021Background
- W.W. was convicted of sexual assault of a five‑year‑old and civilly committed under the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) in 2000; he has been confined in a Special Treatment Unit since then.
- At the SVPA annual review hearing in January 2019 the State presented two experts: psychiatrist Dr. Marta Scott (who recommended conditional discharge) and psychologist Dr. Jamie Canataro (who recommended continued commitment).
- The State first attempted to withhold Dr. Scott as its witness but was required by the trial court to call her; the trial court credited the psychologist over the psychiatrist and ordered continued commitment.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, reasoning the court need not accept a psychiatrist’s opinion and may make the legal determination independent of medical testimony.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court held that N.J.S.A. 30:4‑27.30(b) requires the State to produce psychiatric testimony in support of commitment at initial and review hearings, reversed the Appellate Division, and remanded for a new review hearing; W.W. remains committed pending that rehearing.
Issues
| Issue | W.W.'s Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SVPA requires the State to produce psychiatric testimony that supports commitment at initial/review hearings | The statute’s phrase “clinical basis for the need for involuntary commitment” means the State must present a psychiatrist who testifies in favor of commitment | Producing psychiatric testimony satisfies the statute even if the psychiatrist opposes recommitment; the court may credit other experts | The statute requires psychiatric testimony in support of commitment; producing a psychiatrist who opposes commitment does not satisfy the State’s burden |
| Whether a court may rely on a psychologist’s favorable testimony over a State psychiatrist’s adverse testimony to order commitment | Psychiatric support is required for the State to meet its burden; a psychologist alone cannot substitute | The factfinder may reject an expert’s opinion and credit another expert; commitment is a legal determination informed by expert testimony | The court cannot substitute a psychologist’s supportive testimony for the required psychiatrist’s supportive testimony; the State must present a supporting psychiatrist at rehearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Commitment of Raymond S., 263 N.J. Super. 428 (App. Div. 1993) (interpreting identical civil‑commitment language to require psychiatrist testimony supporting commitment)
- In re Civil Commitment of D.Y., 218 N.J. 373 (2014) (describing SVPA elements and application of commitment standard)
- In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152 (2014) (addressing State’s burden of proof under SVPA)
- In re Commitment of A.H.B., 386 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div. 2006) (construing requirement that psychiatrist testify to clinical basis for commitment)
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005) (statutory‑interpretation principles and presumption that Legislature is aware of judicial construction)