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

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2639-04T26361-05T2

IN THE MATTER OF THE

CIVIL COMMITMENT OF

J.S.D., SVP-115-00

______________________________________________________

 

Argued February 15, 2007 - Decided March 2, 2007

Before Judges Stern and Sabatino.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Essex County,

SVP-115-00.

Patrick Madden, Assistant Deputy Public

Advocate, argued the cause for appellant

(Ronald K. Chen, Public Advocate, attorney;

Mr. Madden, of counsel).

David DaCosta, Deputy Attorney General,

argued the cause for respondent (Stuart

Rabner, Attorney General, attorney; Mr.

DaCosta, of counsel).

PER CURIAM

J.S.D. appeals from an order, entered on June 27, 2006, continuing his commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to .38, upon a finding "by clear and convincing evidence that [he] continues to be a sexually violent predator in need of involuntary commitment in a secure facility for control, care and treatment," and setting a further review for June 27, 2007.

After considering the testimony of Dr. Luis Zeiguer and Dr. Alicia Williams and reviewing the extensive record, Judge Philip Freedman found that appellant suffers from paraphilia and a personality disorder, and was "highly likely" to reoffend in the "reasonably foreseeable future if he [were to be] released.

In continuing appellant's commitment, Judge Freedman relied upon the testimony and opinions of Dr. Zeiguer and Dr. Williams. However, on this appeal, J.S.D. attacks the basis for Dr. Zeiguer's diagnosis and his credibility, and challenges the judge's findings which included the diagnosis that appellant suffered from bipolar disorder.

Dr. Zeiguer based his diagnosis on his interview of appellant for "over two hours" on June 20, 2006, three days before the hearing. He also reviewed records of the Special Treatment Unit which include psychiatric and psychologist reports and criminal history reports. However, he reached his own diagnosis of "paraphalia N.O.S., non consent" and "personality disorder with antisocial and narcissistic features," following his interview of J.S.D. who he found to be "[d]eceitful and manipulative." According to Dr. Zeiguer, despite being "detected and punished" for his crimes and "in spite of successful treatments," and a "stable relationship" with his wife, J.S.D.'s deviant behavior has continued and "he cannot be deterred."

Dr. Williams, a clinical psychologist and member of the treatment team at the Special Treatment Unit, testified that "[f]or the past ten months, [appellant] has unfortunately been a silent participant in the group process in terms of his own treatment issues," and has not addressed "his personal treatment issues." As a result, Dr. Williams did not "have a sound understanding from him of his offenses . . . of what he's learned about himself, what he needs to work on." As a result, the treatment team could not recommend advancement to phase four of treatment or the start of "discharge planning [or] transitioning."

In reaching his conclusion, Judge Freedman expressly stated that he used the "documents, reports [and] evaluations . . . in the record . . . to explain in part why [he found] the expert or experts credible," and that he was "not relying on hearsay as fact to support [his] conclusions." Judge Freedman believed the record warranted a finding that J.S.D. suffered from bipolar disorder which had been previously diagnosed on numerous occasions, in addition to the "other conditions . . . which Dr. Zeiguer . . . correctly diagnosed, which can account for [J.S.D.'s] sexual offending without regard to his bipolar disorder." The judge concluded that "Dr. Zeiguer's dispute with the findings concerning bipolar disorder really doesn't affect his opinion with regard to" J.S.D. While Judge Freedman believed "his bipolar problems make him even more dangerous," he "credit[ed]" Dr. Zeiguer's diagnosis of paraphilia and personality disorder with anti-social and narcissistic features, which he believed make appellant "predisposed to engage in acts of sexual violence." Thus, Judge Freedman expressly found that J.S.D. was "substantially dangerous without reference to bipolar," had "re-offended three times" following prior treatment and release, and that the record supported a finding that "he is still a high risk" to re-offend. In conclusion, the judge found:

And I'm satisfied to find by clear and convincing evidence based on Dr. Zeiguer's opinion which is basically uncontradicted in this particular hearing, and I think the contradictions in the record with regard to bipolarism does not change the validity of his opinion with regard to his paraphilia and his personality disorder.

I find that he suffers from by clear and convincing evidence a paraphilia and a personality disorder that clearly predispose him to engage in acts of sexual violence as is shown by his record. That he would have a serious inability to control his behavior as also as his record has shown if he were released now. And that he would be highly likely to engage in that conduct again in the reasonably foreseeable future if he was released.

The record supports the trial court's required findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that J.S.D. suffers from a mental illness or personality disorder and that he is "highly likely

. . . [to] reoffend" in the reasonably foreseeable future. See In re Civil Commitment of G.G.N., 372 N.J. Super. 42, 46-47 (App. Div. 2004). Accordingly, we must affirm the judgment. See In re Civil Commitment of T.J.N., __ N.J. Super. __, __ (App. Div. 2007) (scope of review); In re Civil Commitment of A.E.F., 377 N.J. Super. 473, 493 (App. Div.) (same), certif. denied, 185 N.J. 393 (2005).

Affirmed.

 

In our opinion of April 13, 2005, we stated that these were subjects that had to be addressed on the remand we ordered.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-2639-04T2

RECORD IMPOUNDED

March 2, 2007