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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
 
 
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3047-05T2

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL
COMMITMENT OF R.J.T. SVP-234-02
_______________________________

Text Box
 
June 5, 2006

Argued: May 16, 2006 - Decided:

Before Judges Kestin and Hoens.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Essex County, SVP-234-02.

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

Amy L. Duff, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney).

 
PER CURIAM

R.J.T., the committee, appeals from the trial court's judgment on his first annual review following our affirmance of the initial commitment judgment in an unpublished opinion filed on December 13, 2004, under docket number A-3897-03. In a judgment entered on January 25, 2006, the trial court continued R.J.T.'S commitment to the Special Treatment Unit (S.T.U.), pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (the 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.
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).
R.J.T.'s criminal record, including sexual offenses dating from 1985; the factual background of his offenses; and the procedural history of his incarceration and civil commitment under the Act were set out in detail in our earlier opinion. We will not rehearse those elements here.
In her oral opinion in the instant proceeding, Judge Perretti evaluated the evidence presented by the State through the testimony of an evaluating psychiatrist and a psychologist who was a member of the unit (T.P.R.C.) that had assessed committee's treatment progress. No affirmative proofs were presented on committee's behalf. The judge found among other facts:

Since [his] admission here to the S.T.U., [committee] has refused all treatment and has . . . refused, as well, to interview either with the evaluating experts for the State or with the T.P.R.C., the organization within the S.T.U. which evaluates patient's treatment.
 
* * * *
 
 
[He] has refused all participation in sex offending treatment at the S.T.U. and has also refused to participate in a substance abuse assessment.
 
* * *
 
 
[He] refuses to sign the treatment refusal forms, but it is clear . . . that he does not attend any process groups, nor any substance abuse groups, nor any modules.

[He] did not interview with the T.P.R.C. * * * [A member of the unit] has met more or less frequently with [committee] in an effort to encourage him to participate in treatment. However, her efforts have been unavailing.

Because committee had "declined to present himself for interview," the evaluating psychiatrist was obliged to base his diagnostic opinions on the documentary sources available. He diagnosed pedophilia, paraphilia n.o.s., alcohol dependence and institutional remission, and personality order n.o.s. According to the judge, that expert opined that committee
suffers from adverse emotional, volitional and cognitive capacities which predispose him to commit sexually violent acts. * * * This is aggravated by his alcohol dependence which impairs his judgment and impulse control. Chronic abuse of alcohol leads to overall diminished functioning and * * * * causes the person increased difficulty in resisting sexually violent urges.

Judge Perretti concluded:
Based upon the testimony, which was clear and convincing, and which was undisputed, the Court finds that [committee] continues to be a sexually violent predator. He suffers from mental conditions and personality disorder that adversely affect his volitional, emotional and cognitive capacities. He has serious difficulty controlling his sex offending behavior and as a result it is highly likely that he will continue to commit sexually violent offenses unless restrained in a closed environment, such as the S.T.U.

The evidence is sufficient to support Judge Perretti's determination to continue R.J.T.'s commitment. The scope of our review is narrow; we must defer to the trial court's determination 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). We are in substantial agreement with the reasons for decision articulated by Judge Perretti based upon the evidence before her.
Given the committee's refusal to cooperate with the evaluating psychiatrist or the T.P.R.C. unit in their preparations for this hearing, we reject committee's arguments that the State's proofs were inadequate to justify continued commitment. We will not allow a committee to derive a proof benefit from his unjustified refusal to cooperate with those responsible for making psychiatric evaluations or treatment assessments. See In re Civil Commitment of A.H.B., ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___ (App. Div. 2006)(slip op. at 18-19)(citing State v. Logan, 244 N.J. Super. 137, 143 (Law Div. 1990), aff'd o.b., 262 N.J. Super. 128 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 133 N.J. 446 (1993)). The trial court is obliged to base its findings and conclusions on the evidence presented, nothing more and nothing less. Here, the State's proofs provided a sufficient basis for the result reached. No argument advanced by this non-participating and uncooperative committee has the capacity to disvalue the quality of the showings made.
Affirmed.
Text Box
 
 


A-3047-05T2