State v. Donald DD., 21 N.E.3d 239

Background

Two consolidated Mental Hygiene Law article 10 civil commitment appeals: Matter of Kenneth T. (bench trial) and Matter of Donald D.D. (jury trial), each involving repeat sexual-offense convictions and petitions seeking civil management/confinement after release.
Kenneth T.: convictions for rape/robbery in the 1980s; later attempted rape in 2000; State’s experts diagnosed paraphilia NOS (nonconsent) and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD); Supreme Court found he had a mental abnormality and needed confinement. Appellate Division affirmed; Court of Appeals reversed for legal insufficiency.
Donald D.D.: multiple sexual offenses (including victims under 15), allegations of sexual abuse of children and spousal rape; State experts diagnosed ASPD (some testified ASPD predisposed him to sex offenses); jury found mental abnormality and confinement was ordered; Appellate Division affirmed; Court of Appeals reversed.
The Court considered whether (1) ASPD alone can constitute the statutory "mental abnormality" under Mental Hygiene Law §10.03(i), and (2) whether the State presented legally sufficient evidence that a respondent has "serious difficulty in controlling" sex-offending conduct.
The Court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Kansas v. Hendricks; Kansas v. Crane) requiring that civil commitment statutes distinguish sexually dangerous persons with qualifying mental abnormalities from the "dangerous but typical recidivist."

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ASPD alone may qualify as a "mental abnormality" under MHL §10.03(i)	State: ASPD can predispose and, with evidence, show serious difficulty controlling sexual conduct	Respondent: ASPD is not a sexual disorder and is too prevalent to distinguish civilly confineable offenders	ASPD alone cannot be the sole diagnosis supporting an article 10 mental-abnormality finding; it does not reliably distinguish from typical recidivists
Whether evidence in Kenneth T. established "serious difficulty in controlling" sexual misconduct	State: combination of paraphilia NOS and ASPD, plus offense circumstances, shows predisposition and lack of control	Kenneth: evidence legally insufficient; facts of offenses alone don't prove inability to control urges	Evidence was legally insufficient to show Kenneth T. had serious difficulty controlling sexual conduct; petition dismissed
Admissibility/adequacy of paraphilia NOS as a predicate condition	State: paraphilia NOS can be a relevant predicate diagnosis	Respondent: paraphilia NOS is controversial and may lack reliability	Shannon S. remains controlling (paraphilia NOS can be considered), but in Kenneth T. the proof of paraphilia NOS (nonconsent) was insufficient on these facts
Constitutional due-process constraint (distinguishing civil commitment from criminal punishment)	State: article 10 conforms to Hendricks/Crane; may use relevant diagnoses to show predisposition and inability to control	Respondent: risk of converting criminal punishment into civil confinement absent strict limits	Court reads article 10 consistent with Hendricks/Crane and holds statute must be applied so that diagnoses actually distinguish those civilly confined from ordinary recidivists; ASPD alone fails that test

Key Cases Cited

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (upholding civil confinement statute tied to "mental abnormality")
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (explaining requirement to distinguish civilly commitable sexual predators from ordinary recidivists; "serious difficulty in controlling" standard)
Matter of State of New York v. Shannon S., 20 N.Y.3d 99 (N.Y. Ct. of Appeals) (held paraphilia NOS may be considered as a predicate condition in article 10 proceedings)
Matter of State of New York v. John S., 23 N.Y.3d 326 (limited article 10 sufficiency discussion; left open whether ASPD alone suffices)
Matter of State of New York v. Floyd Y., 22 N.Y.3d 95 (discussed admissibility of uncharged sexual-misconduct evidence in article 10 trials)