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

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL

COMMITMENT OF R.R. SVP-530-09.

________________________________

June 9, 2014

Submitted May 27, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Harris and Kennedy.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. SVP-530-09.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Brian C. White, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Susan J. Dougherty, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

R.R. appeals from a June 30, 2010 Law Division judgment ordering his initial involuntary civil commitment to the Special Treatment Unit (STU) as a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. We affirm.

I.

R.R. is a fifty-five-year-old male who, after a jury trial, was convicted on October 13, 1988, of multiple offenses including attempted murder, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault, and several weapons' crimes. After merger, R.R.'s aggregate sentence was forty years imprisonment. In 2000, R.R. was transferred to the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center (ADTC).

Prior to the sentence's expiration, the State moved civilly to commit R.R. as a sexually violent predator. The commitment hearing was conducted on April 22, 2010. At the hearing, the State offered documentary evidence and presented the testimony of Pogos Voskanian, M.D., a psychiatrist, and Rosemarie Vala Stewart, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist. R.R. presented the testimony of Christopher Lorah, Ph.D., a psychologist.

Based upon his interview and examination of R.R. on March 12, 2010, as well as, information sources customarily relied upon in performing risk assessments, and the diagnostic impressions of other experts, Dr. Voskanian diagnosed R.R. with, among other things, Paraphilia NOS and Anti-Social Personality Disorder. According to Dr. Voskanian, R.R. "has numerous risk factors of sexual recidivism and is at high risk of sexual recidivism." He further concluded, "it is highly unlikely that [R.R.'s] age has substantially impacted on his risk of sexually violent recidivism."

Dr. Stewart diagnosed R.R. with Personality Disorder NOS and Impulse Control Disorder NOS. Significant in her diagnoses were R.R.'s multiple instances of misbehavior while incarcerated. According to Dr. Stewart, R.R. "presents a high risk of engaging in future acts of deviate sexual behavior . . . if released into the community at this time."

On the other hand, R.R.'s expert, Dr. Lorah, found that R.R. was not highly likely to commit a sex offense if released into the community. Nevertheless, Dr. Lorah conceded that R.R. suffers from Personality Disorder NOS, and probably would not voluntarily participate in counseling services that would be required for a successful transition to the community.

At the close of evidence, Judge John A. McLaughlin ordered R.R.'s involuntary commitment. In so deciding, the judge credited the testimony of Drs. Voskanian and Stewart that R.R. is a high risk to engage in sexually violent behavior in the reasonably foreseeable future, and that R.R. lacks the tools necessary to prevent re-offending. Consequently, Judge McLaughlin found that:

[R.R.'s] antisocial behavior, his various personality disorders, his infractions while at the ADTC, . . . clearly and convincingly prove and support the opinions of Dr. Voskanian and Dr. Stewart that he has difficulty controlling and respond (phonetic) to his sexually violent behavior and that it is highly likely that he will reoffend in the reasonably foreseeable future if not committed to the STU, a secured facility for control, care and treatment.

This appeal followed.

II.

To warrant commitment of an individual under the SVPA, the State must prove "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 consider the individual's "present serious difficulty with control over dangerous sexual behavior," and the State must establish "by clear and convincing evidence . . . that it is highly likely that the person . . . will reoffend." Id. at 132-34.

On this appeal, our review of the Law Division's order is exceedingly limited. In re Commitment of J.P., 339 N.J. Super. 443, 459 (App. Div. 2001) ("The scope of appellate review of a trial court's decision in a commitment proceeding is extremely narrow."). We will disturb that decision only where there was a clear abuse of discretion, and it is our "responsibility to canvass the record, inclusive of the expert testimony, to determine whether the findings made by the trial judge were clearly erroneous." In re Civil Commitment of W.X.C., 407 N.J. Super. 619, 630 (App. Div. 2009), aff'd, 204 N.J. 179 (2010), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ 131 S. Ct. 1702, 179 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2011). In light of the court's expertise in handling these cases, we "must give the 'utmost deference' to [its] determination of the appropriate balancing of societal interest and individual liberty." In re Civil Commitment of J.M.B., 395 N.J. Super. 69, 89-90 (App. Div. 2007), aff'd, 197 N.J. 563, cert. denied, 558 U.S. 999, 130 S. Ct. 509, 175 L. Ed. 2d 361 (2009).

Given our deferential standard of review, we find no basis for reversal. Both of the State's experts were aware of R.R.'s extensive background history. We discern no improper considerations in the experts' derivation of their opinions. Their reliance upon opinions of others and documentary information is wholly unremarkable. Even though some of the information that the State's experts considered was twenty years old, no undue weight was given to such remote information. The analysis that was conducted was both fair and balanced.1

The majority of R.R.'s appellate arguments essentially challenge the weight of the evidence that was arrayed against him. The trial judge reviewed the documentary evidence, heard the experts' direct and cross-examinations, and concluded, as do we, that sufficient credible evidence exists in the record to support the expert opinions that were offered at trial and relied upon the trial judge. See State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470-71 (1999).

Affirmed.

1 R.R.'s contention that the State's expert opinions were too heavily based upon inadmissible hearsay is meritless. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).