IN THE MATTER CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R.J.D.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2925-05T26138-04T2

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL

COMMITMENT OF R.J.D. SVP-215-01

_______________________________

 

Argued: May 16, 2006 - Decided June 5, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Hoens.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Essex County, SVP-215-01.

Mary T. Foy, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney).

Mark H. Singer, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney).

PER CURIAM

R.J.D., the committee, appeals from the trial court's judgment in the latest annual review of his commitment to the Special Treatment Unit pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38, as a "sexually violent predator" in need of involuntary civil commitment in a secure facility for control, care and treatment, see N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26. The judgment we are called upon to review at this time was entered by the trial court on January 24, 2006, following a hearing conducted on January 12, 2006. It provided for the continued commitment of R.J.D., and set December 19, 2006 as the date for the next annual review.

An involuntary civil commitment can follow service of a criminal sentence or other disposition when the offender "suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for control, care and treatment." Ibid. The State must prove "a threat to the health and safety of others because of the likelihood of [the committee] engaging in sexually violent acts." In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 132 (2002). It must demonstrate, "by clear and convincing evidence," id. at 130, "that the individual has serious difficulty in controlling sexually harmful behavior such that it is highly likely that he or she will not control his or her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend." Id. at 132. The trial court must address the committee's "present serious difficulty with control over dangerous sexual behavior." Id. at 132-33. See also In re Civil Commitment of J.H.M., 367 N.J. Super. 599, 608-11 (App. Div. 2003), certif. denied, 179 N.J. 312 (2004).

Judge Freedman explicated the reasons for the order in an oral opinion rendered on January 23, 2006. In making his findings and reaching his conclusions, the judge reviewed the record before him in substantial detail. The State had presented the testimony of an evaluating psychiatrist and a psychologist who was a member of the unit that had evaluated committee's course of treatment. No affirmative proofs were presented on committee's behalf. Counsel for committee argued in summation that the record supported a determination that her client was ready for the next step of treatment, and that committee "should begin preparations on a discharge plan to help him succeed out in the community."

Judge Freedman saw the matter as a "treatment progress case." Applying the required "clear and convincing" standard of proof that the State was obliged to satisfy, he found that committee remained highly likely to reoffend. The judge made findings as to committee's "serious mental abnormality," as established in the proofs and recounted in our unpublished opinion of January 31, 2005, under docket number A-5918-03, affirming the previous annual review judgment. He concluded that committee was not yet ready for the next phase of treatment, involving a conditional release with a continuing therapy plan. He determined that further institutional therapeutic efforts on committee's part were necessary to address the tendencies for deviant arousal.

The scope of our review is narrow; we must defer to the trial court's findings and conclusions unless the record reveals a clear misapplication of discretion. See In re Commitment of J.P., 339 N.J. Super. 443, 459 (App. Div. 2001); see also In re Civil Commitment of V.A., 357 N.J. Super. 55, 63 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 177 N.J. 490 (2003). The evidence presented at the hearing, taken as a whole, with the deference we are required to accord the finder of fact, adequately supports the findings Judge Freedman made in this matter that, clearly and convincingly, R.J.D. remained, at the time, highly likely to reoffend; as well as the judge's conclusion that the commitment should continue until remaining treatment issues are adequately addressed.

The State, although unwilling to concede the issue, has made no strenuous argument to resist committee's argument that he is ready for the development of a conditional discharge plan with appropriate safeguards. Although we have no basis for questioning the trial court's conclusion that, at the time of the hearing, a conditional discharge was not yet appropriate, the substantial progress committee had made to that time suggests that a review date a year from then was excessive and that a six-month review would be more fitting.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of continuing commitment except for the date of the next review, which should be conducted by Judge Freedman by July 12, 2006.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-2925-05T2

RECORD IMPOUNDED

June 5, 2006