People v. Grant
28 N.E.3d 1066
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- James E. Grant was civilly committed in 2002 under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act after 1999 offenses and related history (including a 1990 indicated child-sex-abuse report and a 1992 diagnosis of pedophilia).
- Grant filed a recovery petition in 2012 seeking discharge or conditional release; the Department of Corrections (DOC) submitted a sociopsychiatric evaluation team report recommending conditional release and concluding low risk of recidivism.
- The State moved to appoint an independent psychiatrist (Dr. Stanislaus); the trial court granted the State’s motion over Grant’s objection and denied Grant’s request for a court‑appointed expert.
- The matter went to jury trial; the jury found Grant remained sexually dangerous and subject to commitment.
- On appeal Grant argued the court violated due process by appointing the State’s chosen expert while denying him a court‑appointed expert; the appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Grant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may obtain appointment of a psychiatric expert of its choosing in recovery proceedings under the Act | The State may seek appointment of an independent examiner and its selection should be treated like a non‑indigent respondent retaining an expert | The Act does not authorize the State to have a court‑appointed expert of its choice; allowing that undermines the statute’s use of impartial evaluators | Court held the Act does not contemplate appointment of a State‑chosen expert; granting that motion was error |
| Whether the State must meet a bias or prejudice standard to obtain an independent expert | The State need not show bias; its role and burden justify independent examination without alleging evaluator bias | The State should be held to the same standard as a respondent (must show DOC evaluator bias) | Court held the State was not held to the respondent’s standard here and that was erroneous |
| Whether denial of a court‑appointed expert for the respondent was lawful after the State obtained its chosen expert | The State argued parity not required because respondent can hire private expert or must show DOC bias to get a court expert | Grant argued denial violated due process because the State’s expert was partisan and respondent was entitled to a neutral expert if the State had a partisan one | Court held due process required that if State obtains partisan expert, respondent must be provided an independent examiner; denying Grant an expert violated due process |
| Remedy | N/A | N/A | Reversed and remanded for new proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Burns, 209 Ill. 2d 551 (Ill. 2004) (respondent entitled to court‑appointed expert at State expense only upon showing DOC evaluators are biased)
- People v. Trainor, 196 Ill. 2d 318 (Ill. 2001) (at least one court‑appointed psychiatric expert must testify; SDPA proceedings are civil but carry criminal‑style protections)
- People v. Craig, 403 Ill. App. 3d 762 (Ill. App. 2010) (Act does not expressly provide either party a right to additional court‑appointed experts)