Background

• Masterson challenges SDPA’s requirement that two court-appointed psychiatrists evaluate him and denies his request for a third independent evaluation at public expense, arguing equal protection against the SVPA provision allowing independent examination.
• Proceedings on remand appointed two psychiatrists who opined that Masterson was sexually dangerous; he sought an independent expert, which the court denied.
• SDPA proceedings are civil but require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of sexual dangerousness; respondent has right to counsel and a jury trial; definition of mental disorder is central to SDPA.
• The SVPA is more limited, applying only to a defined set of seriously violent offenses and requiring conviction or insanity finding; it permits different expert procedures and release/discharge procedures.
• The court compares SDPA and SVPA, concluding Masterson is not similarly situated to SVPA respondents, because the groups and procedures address different categories of offenders.
• The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately affirms the appellate court, rejecting the equal protection challenge and holding no constitutional violation in the SDPA’s expert-selection provisions.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• People v. Masterson, 207 Ill.2d 305 (2003) (SDPA/SVPA framework; prior decision on standards for civil commitment)
• People v. Burns, 209 Ill.2d 551 (2004) (discharge procedures differ by offender category)
• People v. Whitfield, 228 Ill.2d 502 (2007) (threshold requirement of similarly situated analysis in equal protection)
• In re Adoption of L.T.M., 214 Ill.2d 60 (2005) (equal protection threshold showing of similarly situated party)
• In re D.W., 214 Ill.2d 289 (2005) (equal protection thresholds and comparison groups)
• People v. Pembrock, 62 Ill.2d 317 (1976) (rational basis review in SDPA equal protection)