IN THE MATTER CIVIL COMMITMENT OF C.R.M.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6775-02T26775-02T2

IN THE MATTER OF THE

CIVIL COMMITMENT OF C.R.M.

(SVP-263-02)

__________________________________

 

Argued February 27, 2006 - Decided March 23, 2006

Before Judges Parrillo and Holston, Jr.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Essex County, SVP-263-02.

Patrick Madden, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant, C.R.M. (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Madden, of counsel and on the brief).

Lisa Marie Albano, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for State of New Jersey (Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Ms. Albano and Patrick DeAlmeida, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant, C.R.M., appeals from a judgment entered on July 7, 2003, ordering his commitment at the Special Treatment Unit (STU) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. He argues, among other things, that his involuntary commitment under the SVPA is unsupported by competent evidence and is based on impermissible hearsay, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, due process and equal protection. We disagree, and affirm.

At the time of commitment, in 2002, C.R.M. was forty-nine years of age with a diagnosis of pedophilia and a lengthy history of criminal sexual conduct. On May 23, 1994, he pled guilty to three counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a(1) and/or (2), involving multiple deviant sex acts upon each of his three daughters, A.S., R.R., M.R., extending from 1986 to 1991, and occurring simultaneous with being charged in 1988 with multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault upon yet another daughter, A.B., for which he was ultimately acquitted. For the crimes to which he pled guilty in May 1994, C.R.M. was sentenced to an aggregate fifteen-year term, which was served at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC) upon an evaluation that his pattern of conduct was "repetitive and compulsive in nature."

According to the victims' accounts, they were extensively sexually abused over a long period of time. For A.S., the abuse endured from age eight to nineteen, during which time C.R.M. performed multiple sex acts upon her and gave her marijuana and cocaine. He began to vaginally penetrate A.S. when she was twelve, and continued until she was nineteen. She became pregnant at age sixteen, however she miscarried. C.R.M. told A.S. that if she told anyone that he was sexually abusing her "[the sisters] would all be separated, placed in foster care, and would never find each other again." C.R.M. also threatened her with a knife in order to gain her sexual compliance, stating that if she did not take off her clothes "he would cut me." A.S. explained that the assaults were frequent, and during certain intervals, occurred nightly.

R.R. reported that C.R.M. began abusing her at age four and that C.R.M. would have sex with her and A.S. simultaneously. According to R.R., C.R.M. performed numerous sex acts upon her, including intercourse, oral sex and sodomy, and at times, this abuse occurred daily. As he did with A.S., C.R.M. threatened R.R. that if she told anyone that he was abusing her, the sisters "would be separated and put into foster homes." When R.R. eventually disclosed the abuse to the Division of Youth & Family Services, "she had a tremendous physical reaction and even fainted."

M.R. revealed that C.R.M. started molesting her when she was eleven, and continued to perform numerous sex acts on her for years. C.R.M. frequently "would beat [M.R.] with a belt," hit her "with his hands" and give her bruises. He beat her, "usually . . . right after [M.R.] refused to have sex with him."

C.R.M.'s version stands in stark contrast to the victims' accounts. In his March 6, 1992 statement to police, C.R.M. admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with his daughters, A.R. and R.R., but said it was limited to only "a couple of occasions." C.R.M. denied ever having sexual contact with M.R. He further explained that he abused his daughters when he "felt the need of someone and just got carried away."

However, C.R.M. recanted his limited confession in a pre-sentence investigation interview on June 24, 1994. At that time, he stated "that the confession he gave [the] police was fictitious and he provided the statement only after being promised that he would only be charged with a 4th degree offense and would probably be out of jail in 8 months." C.R.M. explained that he considered himself to be "a conscientious father who kept his daughters from using drugs and from dating particular boys . . . ." "He claimed [that] his daughters wanted more freedom and they held these threats over his head in an attempt to force him to give them the freedom they wanted."

In the aftermath of his guilty plea, C.R.M. has undergone a series of evaluations that have helped inform the opinions of the expert witnesses who testified at his commitment hearing on January 17 and 21, and May 7, 2003. First, there was the ADTC evaluation by Dr. Kenneth L. McNeil, a clinical psychologist, dated August 30, 1994. According to Dr. McNeil, C.R.M. presented "no evidence of severe psychopathology or gross cognitive impairment." However, the "[c]linical impression is of a narcissistic, stimulation[-]seeking individual, with pronounced antisocial tendencies, and a history of substance abuse and involvement in the drug trade." Based on his interview of C.R.M., Dr. McNeil reported:

Regarding the present offense, [C.R.M.] initially maintained his innocence, claiming that he was falsely accused, and only pled guilty to protect his children from having to go to court, and "to get this over with." After extensive questioning, however, [C.R.M.] changed his story, and asked, "Can we just start all over again?" At this point, he admitted to engaging in sexual intercourse with his oldest daughter . . . A.S., on repeated occasions over a several month period in 1989-1990. He said that he was not really thinking about what he was doing at the time, because of his crack addiction. He nonetheless acknowledged that he knew what he was doing wrong, and he said that he stopped after "a couple of times," because he felt so bad. [C.R.M.] continued to deny any history of sexual involvement with his other daughters, . . . He claimed that they have fabricated charges against him . . . .

Dr. McNeil concluded that C.R.M. had "irresistible" sexual urges for his daughters, and that his behavior was "repetitive and compulsive in nature."

While serving his sentence at the ADTC, C.R.M. was evaluated by therapists Laura Totten, LCSW, and Diane Schaupp, Ph.D., who issued a report on March 11, 2002. In this regard, during his confinement at the ADTC, C.R.M. received therapy and progressed to Level III in 1997, and Level IV in the spring of 2001. He also entered the therapeutic community where he participated in more intensive group work. He completed the psycho-education modules in clear thinking, arousal reconditioning, victim empathy, relapse prevention, and substance abuse. He also ran two peer therapy groups and a self-help committee. Yet despite this progress and test scores yielding a moderate risk for sexual reoffense, the therapists' March 11, 2002 evaluation nevertheless concluded the fact that C.R.M.'s "crimes were committed over an extended period of time and committed with complete disregard for the victims' emotional and physical well being . . . [and] [h]e committed the present offenses while on trial for similar behaviors against another daughter, which is indicative of the extent of his deviance and his compulsiveness . . . [c]reate enough concern to warrant screening for possible civil commitment."

Nearing completion of C.R.M.'s ADTC sentence, Dr. Vivian Shnaidman, a psychiatrist, prepared an exit report on March 19, 2002, concluding that "[h]e does not appear to take any responsibility for his sex offending behavior, repeatedly blaming the victims, their mothers, society, his own upbringing, and others." Moreover, C.R.M. "continues to downplay the severity of what he did to his victims and does not acknowledge the pain, both physical and mental, that they suffered." Dr. Shnaidman concluded that "[C.R.M.] is at elevated risk for sexual reoffense," and determined that he should be civilly committed.

The State's subsequent petition on July 16, 2002, to commit C.R.M. under the SVPA was supported by clinical certificates prepared by Dr. Shnaidman and another psychiatrist, Lawrence A. Siegel. According to Dr. Shnaidman, while C.R.M. admitted

having sexual relations with his daughters, he denies they happened as frequently as the victims report, and also

the nature of [the contact] from his descriptions differs markedly from the victim's accounts. For instance, two of the victims described to authorities that they bled from the sexual contacts. One victim described having had a female cousin in the house one night to whom [C.R.M.] showed a "nasty movie" and gave some liquor. [C.R.M.] says there is no such cousin and that none of the girls bled. He also denies having made verbal threats to use a knife as indicated in one victim's statement.

Dr. Shnaidman diagnosed C.R.M. with "Axis I Pedophilia, female, non-exclusive type, limited to incest; r/o sexual sadism; cocaine abuse. Axis II Antisocial Personality Disorder."

Dr. Siegel also interviewed C.R.M. on July 16, 2002, and found the same disparity in accounts:

[C.R.M.] is an incarcerated sex offender who molested his three young daughters (16, 15, 13 according to him; according to the official record, the abuse began when the girls were four to eight years old). According to the record, the abuse went on for years, but the inmate insists that the girls were much older and the abuse did not occur over such a long period of time.

. . . .

[C.R.M.] continues to minimize his sex offending behaviors, insisting the victims were teenagers (they were little girls, 4-8 years old when the abuse began) and claiming the abuse occurred only sporadically, when the victims all claimed it was ongoing, horrific, painful, sadistic sexual abuse.

Dr. Siegel found C.R.M.'s "compulsivity . . . to be well masked (i.e. repressed)," and that he "did not meaningfully participate in treatment in this facility." Dr. Siegel also addressed C.R.M.'s test scores, explaining that his score on MnSOST-R "does not predict an elevated risk of sexual re-offense," in part because the test "is not normed for use with intrafamilial sex offenders"; he also acknowledged that the STATIC 99 results indicated a "[m]edium-low risk of sexual reoffense." Dr. Siegel diagnosed C.R.M. with "Axis I Pedophilia, girls, and paraphilia, NOS - teenage girls. Also R/O Sexual Sadism; Cocaine dependence and alcohol dependence in institutional remission Axis II antisocial Personality Disorder."

Prior to C.R.M's temporary commitment on August 15, 2002, Dr. Charles P. Gnassi, a psychiatrist, evaluated him on August 8, 2002, with a diagnosis of "Axis I Pedophilia (Sexually attracted to females) and possibly males; Paraphilia NOS, Rule Out Sexual Sadism; past history Poly Substance Dependence; Cocaine and Alcohol in Institutional Remission; Axis II Personality Disorder NOS; Adult Antisocial Behavior; Anti Social Personality Trait." He noted that C.R.M.'s "history creates concern;" and the fact of his conviction of three counts of aggravated sexual assault involving offenses committed while he was on trial for similar behavior against another daughter was found to be significant for the "amount of deviance and compulsiveness" indicated. Dr. Gnassi concluded that:

[b]ased upon his past history and brief interview . . . he still has a mental disorder that puts him at a high risk to reoffend. It is my medical impression within a reasonable medical certainty based upon his past history and current mental status that he is a . . . Sexually Violent Predator [and] is more likely than not to commit future Sex Offenses.

At the final commitment hearing, Dr. Pogos H. Voskanian, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Robert Carlson testified as experts for the State, and Dr. Timothy Foley testified on behalf of C.R.M. Significantly, despite differences in their diagnoses and prognostications, all three experts agreed that C.R.M. would be at a high risk of re-offending if he were placed in the same situation, in a relationship with a woman with children.

Dr. Voskanian found significant the duration of the offending, the multiple sex acts on the children, and the "planned" sex with the two children. He found the latter conduct "less compulsive, but more premeditated." In his interview with Dr. Voskanian, C.R.M. denied engaging in sexual behavior with his daughters until they were teenagers, and claimed that M.R. and A.S's allegations stemmed from their discomfort with their homosexual relationships, and were in retaliation against him. In Dr. Voskanian's opinion, C.R.M. was minimizing and denying his offenses, including his addiction to cocaine, although the expert did note that ultimately C.R.M. did admit to the extent of his sexual abuse of A.S. and R.R.

Dr. Voskanian diagnosed C.R.M. "with pedophilia, sexually attracted to females," basing his conclusion on the fact that C.R.M. was involved with his daughters, the degree of involvement, the availability of the victims, and the variety of sexual activities he engaged in. He also diagnosed C.R.M. with alcohol and cocaine dependence, and mixed personality disorder with antisocial traits, which "makes it less likely for him to refrain from . . . inappropriate sexual behaviors." Dr. Voskanian based his diagnosis of mixed personality disorder on C.R.M.'s extensive history of legal problems, which began at a young age, and his "long history of disregard for others," which includes drug trading. Specifically, with respect to his likelihood of re-offending, C.R.M. has "[a] lack of empathy" and a "[d]isregard for others." His risk of reoffending is higher due to C.R.M.'s substance dependency, which he minimized.

In sum, Dr. Voskanian concluded that C.R.M. has "sexual deviancy . . . an issue with substance abuse, [and] an issue with denial and minimization." Dr. Voskanian concluded, with a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty, that "[C.R.M.] does require treatment . . . . [And] there is a substantial risk that he may commit these offenses [again]."

Dr. Carlson diagnosed C.R.M. with "a personality disorder NOS, antisocial, paranoid, and anxious." He attributed some of the antisocial tendencies and fears to his alcohol abuse. Dr. Carlson also noted that there was a tendency to "distort certain situations" and concluded that because the environmental dynamics were "critical in . . . assessing risk . . . . there are some situations which he clearly would be a high risk and other situations that I believe the risk would not be so high."

As to the latter, Dr. Carlson also observed "a paraphilia NOS that has an attraction to minor females and is specifically incest oriented." He did not think that "[C.R.M.] had, at that time, or perhaps still does not have the security, the confidence, the interpersonal skills . . . to engage other children outside his sphere of influence." However, the potential for reoffense could occur if C.R.M. were to date a woman who had young children.

Dr. Carlson acknowledged that C.R.M. had reached the highest level in the therapeutic community, and that overall, "[C.R.M.] had a treatment trajectory at the ADTC that was . . . generally quite positive." And, his Level 4 status "suggests

. . . engagement in treatment and acquisition of knowledge of treatment. That is pretty significant." At the same time, Dr. Carlson noted, as did the others, the great variance in accounts:

[H]e indicated that his first sexual encounter with her was when she was age 15. He described an escalating pattern of abuse over [a] . . . two year period where he would seek her out for his sexual gratification "off and on" and indicated the total number of encounters at approximately 10 to 14. He described the sexual activity with her was often in the "doggy position" so "I wouldn't see her face". He indicated that he used this individual as an object of sexual gratification and "I didn't see anything wrong with it". He indicates that the sexual abuse of A.S. ceased when on one occasion she made some noise and looked back at him and the expression on her face was disturbing to [C.R.M.].

. . . .

Regarding the incidents with M.R. [C.R.M.] indicated she was 12 or 13 years old when he approached her and attempted to seduce her for sexual gratification.

Dr. Foley, on the other hand, found no evidence that "[C.R.M.] suffers from a mental abnormality that's causally linked to future acts of sexual violence, and . . . he is less than highly likely to recidivate." Dr. Foley explained that "recidivism rates for incest offenders are usually reported as quite low," but acknowledged that if C.R.M. were to return "to the situation where . . . he had the power and control over a group of young females where he was rejected, became very angry, . . . there would be a significant risk there[]", that C.R.M. "would be [in] a high risk situation."

Although Dr. Foley found no clear data for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, he also acknowledged that the eleven arrests and [C.R.M.'s] unabated offending after trial, was evidence of "adult antisocial behavior." Dr. Foley also concluded that C.R.M. did not suffer from a paraphilic disorder, although he admitted that C.R.M. was paraphilic in the past, and that difficulty controlling one's sexual urges is "part and parcel of a paraphilia." Dr. Foley further noted that the Abel Screen indicated C.R.M. had "no measured sexual interest in children," which "was not unusual to find . . . in incest cases."

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Freedman concluded that the State demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that C.R.M. was a sexually violent predator who is highly likely to recidivate. He reasoned:

I find it to be highly likely that if he were released within the reasonably foreseeable future, somehow he would find himself in a situation, get himself into a situation where he could continue the kind of sex abuse that he -- that he performed in the past. That is clear based on his record. He is clearly predisposed. His -- I reject Dr. Foley's view that he does not have a -- a mental abnormality or personality disorder that predisposes him. If he doesn't have that, how could he possibly be a substantial risk as Dr. Foley said.

So I reject his view. I also reject the view of Dr. Carlson that he's strictly an incest offender. I don't really think based on the testimony of Dr. Voskanian, he's substantially different. He's certainly incest in nature, but he's substantially different than a normal incest offender, that he has . . . a serious compulsiveness shown by his conduct in light -- and in the face of lengthy investigation in regard to this conduct.

Once he was charged, he knew that he -- the investigation would continue. When he gave his statement of . . . admissions with regard to . . . his other three children, two stepchildren and one real -- and one actual child.

He acknowledged that he was -- he knew there was an investigation going on, and yet he continued to do it. And I don't think you could find a better set of fact to show compulsiveness if you looked.

He -- in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he were released, he would again, in my view, be engaged in abusing a child, be it in either prepubescent or post-pubescent child, depending on what circumstances he could get himself into in order to have access to the child.

Dr. Carlson may be right that he's not a rapist on the street, or abductor of a strange child but there's nothing to prevent him from . . . connecting to a woman with children and so as to get access to the children, which is a common occurrence. And the most stringent restraints or conditions, unless he [was] . . . in a place being watched 24 hours a day, as he is here at the STU would prevent him from doing that.

And I find that based on his compulsiveness, as shown by his record, and by the . . . opinion of Dr. Voskanian and others, that he would be -- including Dr. Shnaidman -- that he would do his best and would, in fact, succeed in getting himself in the situation.

So for those reasons, I am satisfied he meets all the criteria of the statute. He is highly likely, serious inability to control his behavior. He's predisposed -- to engage in these acts, and they affect all three aspects of his personality and -- and that he without question comes within the purview of the statute, and I will commit him for those reasons.

On appeal, C.R.M., through counsel, raises the following issues:

I. THE COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DEVELOPED IT'S OWN OPINION ON THE RESULTS OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING, CONTRARY TO THE EXPERT OPINION.

II. THE STATE FAILED TO PRODUCE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT C.R.M. WAS HIGHLY LIKELY TO COMMIT A FUTURE SEXUAL OFFENSE.

III. THE STATE'S RELIANCE ON UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT IMPERMISSIBLY CIRCUMVENTED C.R.M.'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO HAVE A JURY TRIAL, AND CONFLICTS WITH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BLAKELY V. WASHINGTON.

IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RELYING ON AN UNSUBSTANTIATED EXPERT OPINION OF RISK TO COMMIT C.R.M.

In addition, C.R.M., pro se, raises these additional issues:

I. PETITIONER WAS DENIED (A) EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; (B) PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING IN VIOLATION OF U.S.C.A. 5TH, 6TH, 14TH; AND N.J.S.A. ART. 10, PAR. 8; AND N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.28.

II. PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, AS GUARANTEED BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

III. PETITIONER WAS DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE AS GUARANTEED BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

We have considered each of these issues in light of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments of counsel and C.R.M., pro se, and we are satisfied that none of them is of sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) & (E). We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Freedman's oral opinion of July 7, 2003. We add only the following comments.

An involuntary civil commitment can follow service of a sentence, or other criminal 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." N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26(b). "[T]he State must prove that threat [to the health and safety of others because of the likelihood of his or her engaging in sexually violent acts] by demonstrating 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." In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 132 (2002). The court must address "his or her present serious difficulty with control," and the State must establish that it is highly likely that the committee will reoffend by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 132-33. See also In re Civil Commitment of J.H.M., 367 N.J. Super. 599, 610-11 (App. Div. 2003), certif. denied, 179 N.J. 312 (2004).

In reviewing a judgment for commitment under the SVPA, the scope of appellate review is "extremely narrow" and the trial court's decision should be given the "'utmost deference' and modified only where the record reveals a clear abuse of discretion." In re Commitment of J.P., 339 N.J. Super. 443, 459 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting State v. Fields, 77 N.J. 282, 311 (1978)); 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 appropriate inquiry is to canvass the . . . expert testimony in the record and determine whether the lower court's findings were clearly erroneous." In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31, 58-59 (1996). Moreover, the court's evidentiary rulings are "entitled to deference absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, i.e., there has been a clear error of judgment." State v. Marrero, 148 N.J. 469, 484 (1997).

We are satisfied from our review of the record that Judge Freedman's findings are amply supported by competent substantial credible evidence. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999). We are also satisfied that Judge Freedman properly permitted the State's testifying experts to utilize pre-sentence investigation reports, police reports, and the reports generated by prior psychiatric and psychological evaluations. These are precisely the type of records relied upon by experts in the fields of psychiatry and psychology in arriving at their own independent diagnosis and opinions. See In re Civil Commitment of A.X.D., 370 N.J. Super. 198, 201-02 (App. Div. 2004); J.H.M., supra, 367 N.J. Super. at 612; N.J.R.E. 703. Clearly, "the use of hearsay as [a] basis for expert testimony and the hearing judge's evaluation of expert credibility" is permissible. In re Civil Commitment of G.G.N., 372 N.J. Super. 42, 55 (App. Div. 2004); In re Civil Civil Commitment of A.E.F., 377 N.J. Super. 473, 489 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 185 N.J. 393 (2005); A.X.D., supra, 370 N.J. Super. at 201-02. In fact, some hearsay is admissible for the truth of the matter asserted, such as treatment records, under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6). See A.X.D., supra, 370 N.J. Super. at 202.

Similarly, the introduction of pre-sentence reports is proper since such evidence is of a type reasonably relied upon by mental experts in formulating their evaluations of an individual's mental condition. J.H.M., supra, 367 N.J. Super. at 612. So too, a court may accept the records made by police officers "as reliable insofar as they relate that [the victim] actually told the story to [the officer]." In re Registrant, C.A., 146 N.J. 71, 98 (1996).

To be sure, "experts at the [civil commitment] hearing cannot simply parrot the findings of the doctors who author the clinical certificates." A.E.F., supra, 377 N.J. Super. at 491. However, reliance is not precluded "as long as the opinion ultimately rendered at the . . . commitment hearing is that of the [expert] witness based on his or her own evaluation of the committee, [the committee's] prior offenses, and objective test data." Id. at 492.

Here, Judge Freedman properly considered the limited purpose for which evidence of the non-testifying experts' reports were admitted. It is equally clear that the State's testifying experts formed their own opinions based on their interviews and evaluations of C.R.M., and that each was subject to full cross-examination by counsel for C.R.M. Under the circumstances, we find no error in any of the evidentiary rulings of the trial judge.

 
Affirmed.

C.R.M. also has an extensive arrest record dating from 1993, involving non-sexual offenses and a substantial drug addiction. As a juvenile, C.R.M. was adjudicated for breaking and entering with the intent to steal and terroristic threats. In addition, he had eleven previous arrests in New Jersey and California, but no known convictions. His arrest history includes drunk and disorderly persons, property and vehicle theft, possession of narcotics, larceny, creating disturbance and receiving stolen property.

The victims' statements are contained in C.R.M.'s presentence report prepared by Alice Lyons dated August 8, 1994.

(continued)

(continued)

20

A-6775-02T2

RECORD IMPOUNDED

March 23, 2006