IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF G.G.N.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 G.G.N.,

SVP-257-02.

____________________________

July 19, 2016

Submitted April 25, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Carroll and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, SVP-257-02.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant G.G.N. (Thomas G. Hand, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Stephen Slocum, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

G.G.N. appeals from a June 17, 2014 judgment continuing his involuntary commitment to the Special Treatment Unit (STU), the secure custodial facility designated for the treatment of persons in need of commitment pursuant to the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. He argues that the trial judge used the wrong legal standard by predicating his decision to commit on G.G.N.'s likelihood to comply with the terms of a conditional discharge plan, rather than his likelihood to commit a sexually violent offense. In the alternative, G.G.N. argues that the judge's decision was not supported by the record and the judge erred in crediting the State's experts and rejecting G.G.N.'s. We reject G.G.N.'s contentions and affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Philip M. Freedman's comprehensive oral decision of June 17, 2014.

Upon completing his sentence for multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault, attempted aggravated sexual assault and weapons offenses, G.G.N. was civilly committed in 2002 to the STU pursuant to the SVPA. G.G.N. successfully appealed that judgment, resulting in its reversal and remand based on our view that "the State's witnesses gave excessive weight to the original crimes in finding present day likelihood to engage in acts of sexual violence" and relied extensively on hearsay to encapsulate G.G.N.'s then fourteen years of therapy. In re Civil Commitment of G.G.N., 372 N.J. Super. 42, 59 (App. Div. 2004). Following the rehearing on remand, the judge again entered a judgment committing G.G.N., and this court upheld that determination on appeal. In re Civil Commitment of G.G.N., No. A-2982-04 (App. Div. Feb. 10, 2006).

This is G.G.N.'s third appeal of his commitment following a review hearing conducted on May 20, 2014.1 We incorporate the facts and procedural history set forth in our prior opinions. It has been conclusively established in those cases that G.G.N. committed the predicate sexually violent offense required under the SVPA. See N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26. Specifically, G.G.N. pled guilty in 1981 to raping three teenage girls, ranging in age from fifteen to nineteen, and attempting to rape a forty-year-old woman, all of which occurred on different dates over a thirty-day period. G.G.N. was twenty-one years old at the time. All the attacks involved G.G.N. approaching the victim on the street, directing her to a secluded spot, and raping her at gunpoint. One victim was able to escape before being sexually assaulted.2 When G.G.N. pled guilty to the rapes, he was under probationary supervision for forgery and possession of stolen property, and was previously convicted for larceny and simple assault.

G.G.N. was sentenced to an aggregate term of forty years of imprisonment, six years of which he served in State prison before being transferred to the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC) in 1987. G.G.N. remained at the ADTC for fifteen years until he was transferred to the STU following the State's petition for civil commitment pursuant to the SVPA, which was ultimately upheld by this court. By orders dated December 21, 2012 and December 24, 2013, the judge continued G.G.N.'s commitment following review hearings, but ordered the STU to continue the process of discharge planning, including provisions for furloughs.

Beginning on November 8, 2013, G.G.N. successfully completed eight furloughs. However, on February 4, 2014, upon returning from his ninth furlough, G.G.N. was charged with violating the terms of his furlough by attempting to smuggle contraband, consisting of tobacco products, lighters and toiletries, into the STU, resulting in a MAP3 placement. Thereafter, on the State's application, the judge set aside his December orders, suspended G.G.N.'s furloughs, and ultimately continued G.G.N.'s commitment to the STU following a review hearing that is the subject of this appeal.

At the review hearing, the State presented two expert witnesses, Dr. John Zincone, a psychiatrist who interviewed G.G.N. on May 8, 2014, and Dr. Jamie Canataro, a psychologist and member of G.G.N.'s Treatment Progress Review Committee (TPRC),4 both of whom testified in favor of continued commitment. G.G.N. presented one expert witness, Dr. Timothy Foley, a psychologist who interviewed G.G.N. on May 1, 2014, and who testified in favor of G.G.N.'s release. The parties stipulated to the qualifications of the experts. Their respective reports, along with G.G.N.'s treatment notes, were admitted into evidence without objection.

The State's experts agreed that G.G.N. continues to suffer from a mental abnormality and personality disorder that predispose him to sexually re-offend and meet the criteria of the SVPA. Dr. Zincone diagnosed G.G.N. with other specified paraphilic disorder, non-consensual type; anti-social personality disorder; and alcohol and cannabis use disorder, mild in a controlled environment, which conditions do not remit spontaneously and, in combination, elevate G.G.N.'s risk to re-offend. Dr. Zincone's diagnosis was based on G.G.N.'s history of rapes and rape fantasies, his arousal during his rapes, and the fact that he raped when he had intimate partners available to him and was on probation. Further, according to Dr. Zincone, the anti-social personality disorder diagnosis is appropriate given G.G.N.'s history of poor impulse control, lack of victim empathy, and a general disregard for the rights of others. Dr. Zincone pointed out that the alcohol and cannabis use disorder can cause G.G.N. to act out on his deviant arousal.

Likewise, Dr. Canataro diagnosed G.G.N. with paraphilia NOS, non-consent; personality disorder NOS, with anti-social features; and alcohol and cannabis abuse in institutional remission. Both experts scored G.G.N. with a 4 on the Static-99R,5 placing his risk to reoffend at a "moderate, high risk." In addition, G.G.N. received a 25.6 psycopathy score, reflecting an elevated level of psychopathic traits and a high range of psychopathic disturbance, albeit at the lower end of the range.

G.G.N.'s history of institutional infractions was well documented. Over the years, G.G.N. incurred over twenty institutional charges at the ADTC and the STU for refusing to obey orders, use of abusive language, possession of unauthorized materials, being in an unauthorized area, unauthorized use of equipment, stealing, engaging in gambling related activities, positive drug tests for marijuana,6 soliciting sex from other residents, and, most recently, threatening another resident7 and attempting to smuggle contraband into the STU following a furlough. Some of these infractions resulted in MAP placements as well as detention.

In addition, G.G.N.'s recent treatment record was inconsistent. In June 2008, G.G.N. entered the therapeutic community (TC) but was removed for persistent lack of engagement and failure to utilize community resources to support treatment progress. In December 2008, he returned to the TC but was removed again in December of 2009 because of his underutilization of treatment resources and unwillingness to comply with specific treatment recommendations. In October 2012, while in phase 3 level of treatment, G.G.N.'s integration of concepts was deemed questionable. Nonetheless, G.G.N. was court ordered into phase 4 in December 2012, in order to continue the discharge planning process, and remained there at the time of the review hearing in question. Notwithstanding the fact that G.G.N. was in phase 4, his treatment team viewed him as functioning at phase 3 level of treatment and noted that he had made "minimal to no progress" in most of his problem areas, and that his empathy for victims and peers was deemed "superficial, at best."

Dr. Zincone testified that the fact that G.G.N. had both adult and child victims is indicative of "a very deeply ingrained, difficult to control arousal." According to Dr. Zincone, G.G.N. had "a very chaotic upbringing" wherein he witnessed his mother severely abused by his father and "his ideas about sex and relationships were significantly distorted at an early age." Dr. Zincone opined that "[t]hese were possible origins of [G.G.N.'s] deviant behaviors," resulting in G.G.N. having a difficult time controlling his sexual behavior over the years.

Dr. Zincone also noted that G.G.N.'s institutional reports show discrepant accounts of his sexual behavior, leading Dr. Zincone to question whether G.G.N. is "being honest about his prior deviant fantasies . . . and masturbation." Dr. Zincone recounted G.G.N.'s description during their May 8 interview of a fantasy he had sometime in the nineties involving his first uncharged victim. Dr. Zincone was struck by the language G.G.N. used in describing the fantasy because it did not reflect years of treatment. According to Dr. Zincone, instead, it showed someone who has "little remorse, . . . little insight about his crimes, or the victim empathy piece of his treatment."

According to Dr. Zincone, his review of G.G.N.'s past treatment history demonstrates a persistent pattern of self-sabotage, including the most recent incident involving G.G.N.'s attempt to smuggle contraband into the STU upon returning from his second to last furlough. G.G.N. provided differing rationales for his behavior, ranging from wanting to celebrate with his friends at the STU to seeking revenge for years of purported unfair treatment by the system. Dr. Zincone pointed out that G.G.N. was unable to see the "parallels" between the furlough violation and the crimes that resulted in G.G.N.'s initial confinement. According to Dr. Zincone

[G.G.N.] came here obviously for the rapes, but when you look at his dynamics, his rapes occurred after he was unable to deal with . . . stressors and relationships, and he would act out. . . . [G.G.N.] here, again, was unable to deal with the stress of . . . him being here too long, . . . him getting MAPS he feels he didn't deserve, being told what to do in treatment, when he thought

. . . he knew what was best for him, and here, again, he breaks a rule fairly close to being released from the STU.

Dr. Zincone explained that G.G.N.'s furlough violation showed "poor insight" and an inability to identify his "deviant cycle." Dr. Zincone correlated G.G.N.'s rule-breaking behavior with his sexual offending risk, stating

[G.G.N.] is an individual who has a difficult time seeing when he's in his buildup, his cycle if you will, and he will act out . . . . He was in a significant period of negative thinking at . . . the time of the rapes. He was not happy with himself. He couldn't deal with stress, and he acted out.

Here, again, we see [G.G.N.] just being unable to deal with the perception that he was treated unfairly again by the system, if you will. And, again, he acts out fairly close to being let go from the STU. . . .

[T]his is an individual who doesn't get it, who still thinks he can break rules, and get away with it, which . . . points to a very deeply ingrained anti-social orientation, another risk of sexual re-offense.

Dr. Zincone described G.G.N.'s current treatment as "uneven." According to Dr. Zincone, "although [G.G.N.] has the book knowledge of sex offender treatment, . . . his ability to integrate the knowledge and apply them to his life still is lacking" and "his true knowledge of sex offender treatment is overshadowed by his anti-social attitudes[.]" Further, Dr. Zincone specified that G.G.N.'s knowledge of relapse prevention is "still very incomplete" and that G.G.N. had to "continue to work on strengthening those core treatment concepts." However, referring to G.G.N.'s recent tearful admission that he had been "fighting the system for so long that he lost himself in the process[,]" Dr. Zincone believed that G.G.N. was on the verge of a "breakthrough" in that he appeared to be starting to "diminish his resistance to treatment" and, for the first time, appeared to be "open to an exploration of his behaviors[.]"

Nonetheless, Dr. Zincone opined that, at this point in time, G.G.N. has not integrated enough treatment to adequately control the impulses caused by his disorders and he "needs to begin to work on himself[.]" Dr. Zincone noted that G.G.N. continues to be impulsive in solving his problems, giving no thought to consequences, and characterized his risk to sexually reoffend in the foreseeable future as "highly likely" if not committed to the STU for further treatment. Dr. Zincone opined that, if released, G.G.N. would still have serious difficulty controlling his sexual offending behavior at this point because

[H]e meets the statutory requirements. He has the mental abnormality, the personality disorder . . . His history points to poor sexual impulse control given the amount of rapes in such a short period of time he committed. His treatment affect has not been up to par at this point. We see him

. . . continuing to hold on to a lot of hostility about the system, causing him to make poor decisions for himself, looking at his victim impact as well. We see [G.G.N.'s] crimes were severe. He . . . raped stranger females randomly . . . that he saw on the street, at gunpoint, and he's . . . had difficulty with being on supervision in the past as well. He violated probation on the index crime so . . . that's also being considered as well.

Dr. Canataro testified that, despite continuing in his discharge furlough process, G.G.N. "continues to evidence many of his anti-social tendencies." According to Dr. Canataro, although G.G.N.'s actuarial score is reduced by one point for his age, which encompasses a "burn out effect," G.G.N. is neither demonstrating "burn out effect" nor "treatment effect." Dr. Canataro described G.G.N. as "an individual with a significant anti-personality structure" who "does not believe that the rules apply to him."

Dr. Canataro testified that G.G.N.'s recent furlough violation "demonstrates dynamic risk factors . . . notably, the lack of cooperation and supervision." Referring to G.G.N.'s acknowledgement that "he didn't even think about it" but rather brought the contraband to the STU "because he wanted to celebrate[,]" Dr. Canataro described G.G.N.'s conduct as "the absolute definition of impulsive behavior." According to Dr. Canataro, "it could even be considered that [G.G.N.] has been engaging in his furlough process within the buildup of his cycle."

Dr. Canataro explained

[G.G.N.] is continuing to act out. The buildup is the thoughts and the behaviors that come before the acting out. So, [G.G.N.] . . . has many years of sex offender treatment. . . . [H]e's an intelligent individual that should he decide to want to put his treatment work into play, he could be using his treatment knowledge, which he is not doing, and . . . given [G.G.N.'s] sex offending dynamics that his offenses were impulsive, opportunistic, violent, he utilized weapons on stranger females, we would want to see some treatment effect for [G.G.N.].

There is no grooming, there is no prolonged period prior to his acting out. He impulsively acts out. There is going to be little opportunity for parole and sex offender treatment, his therapist, to detect this buildup should he act out in the future. So . . . given [G.G.N.'s] offending dynamics, we would like to see treatment effect in [G.G.N.], and he . . . does have the intellectual understanding of treatment. His treatment team notes he has command of his sexual assault cycle, he's able to talk about relapse prevention techniques. He just doesn't utilize them in the moment, at times.

Dr. Canataro concluded that G.G.N.'s risk to sexually re-offend in the foreseeable future was "highly likely" if not re-committed to the STU for further treatment.

Contrary to the State's experts, Dr. Foley opined that G.G.N.'s risk to sexually re-offend in the foreseeable future was "less than highly likely." Although Dr. Foley agreed with the diagnosis of paraphilia NOS, in Dr. Foley's opinion, given G.G.N.'s treatment history and polygraph examinations, the paraphilia was "in remission." Further, while Dr. Foley agreed that there were indications of adult anti-social traits, he did not diagnose G.G.N. with anti-social personality disorder because, in his opinion, there was insufficient evidence of a conduct disorder before the age of fifteen. Likewise, Dr. Foley did not find sufficient evidence for a diagnosis of drug or alcohol abuse.

Recognizing that G.G.N. has had "some bumps in the road" in progressing in his sex offender treatment, Dr. Foley believes that G.G.N. "gets it intellectually." Although Dr. Foley acknowledged that G.G.N. "has persisted in anti-social acts" that "get him in trouble," he disagreed that there was a "robust connection" between G.G.N.'s anti-social acts and his risk to sexually re-offend. Further, Dr. Foley disagreed that the furlough violation was indicative of impulsive behavior or an impairment of volitional control on the part of G.G.N. According to Dr. Foley, G.G.N. "could have controlled his behavior, he just chose not to."

Dr. Foley observed that in discussing the furlough violation, G.G.N. described "buying the tobacco" as a "lapse" and bringing "it back [into] the facility" as a "relapse." According to Dr. Foley, G.G.N. recognized that it was an "ill-chosen act" that "didn't make a whole lot of sense." Dr. Foley found it particularly noteworthy that G.G.N. "expressed remorse[,]" "seemed to understand that there were consequences to this behavior[,]" and was "particularly cognizant of the fact that he had sabotaged himself as well as hurt his . . . girlfriend, and his brother." Given this insight as well as the fact that the other furloughs occurred without incident, Dr. Foley believed that G.G.N. would comply with a conditional discharge, noting that "he has to recognize that he has to play by the rules that are set down for him, not the rules that he decides, or he elects to follow."

In a detailed oral opinion spanning fifty-seven transcript pages, Judge Freedman chronicled the procedural history of the case, referenced G.G.N.'s treatment records, and summarized the testimony and the reports of the expert witnesses. The judge then determined by clear and convincing evidence that G.G.N. suffers from a paraphilia, anti-social personality disorder and substance abuse which affect him emotionally, cognitively and volitionally, and predispose him to sexually re-offend. The judge rejected Dr. Foley's opinion that G.G.N.'s paraphilia was in remission and pointed out that G.G.N.'s anti-social acting out behavior has continued, rather than diminished, with age. Judge Freedman concluded that "if released[,] [G.G.N.] would have a serious difficulty controlling his sexually violent behavior, and would, in fact, be highly likely, within the reasonably foreseeable future to engage in acts of sexual violence."

Judge Freedman observed that G.G.N. had an inconsistent treatment history, which demonstrated that he was not engaging in treatment "the way he should have" as recently as "a month or two ago." The judge noted further that G.G.N. did not engage in "very much sex offender specific treatment" for this entire year and pointed out that G.G.N.'s "victim of the system stance" adversely impacts his progress in treatment and places the treatment team in a "persecutory" position.

Judge Freedman identified the "crux of the case" as the "connection" between G.G.N.'s anti-social conduct and his sexual re-offending behavior. The judge rejected Dr. Foley's attempt to discount the connection and accepted the State's account that the "connection is there." The judge explained that "despite his lengthy period of treatment" and his extensive "knowledge" of treatment, G.G.N. lacks "treatment effect." Judge Freedman reasoned

He's taken a lot of treatment, but his characterological problems prevent him from utilizing that treatment with regard to his own conduct.

How else can you explain a person that was one furlough away, and several weeks away from a potential conditional discharge engaging in the conduct in which he engaged in. So . . . it's impossible to excuse as Dr. Foley attempted to do. It's self-sabotage, it's anti-social activity, it's impulsive behavior just popping out despite all the knowledge that he has . . . .

So, I'm satisfied to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the opinion of Dr. Zincone and Dr. Canataro are, in fact, supported by the evidence, the whole history of this case. I credit their testimony, and I disagree . . . [with] Dr. Foley's attempt to discount the importance of [G.G.N. s] conduct . . . .

[H]is conduct is . . . related to sexual

. . . offending . . . .

The judge signed a memorializing order continuing G.G.N.'s commitment to the STU and this appeal followed.

We begin with a review of basic principles. An involuntary civil commitment can follow an offender's service of a custodial sentence, or other criminal disposition, when he or she "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. As defined by the statute, a "mental abnormality" consists of "a mental condition that affects a person's emotional, cognitive or volitional capacity in a manner that predisposes that person to commit acts of sexual violence." Ibid. The mental abnormality or personality disorder "must affect an individual's ability to control his or her sexually harmful conduct." In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 127 (2002). A showing of an impaired ability to control sexually dangerous behavior will suffice to prove a mental abnormality. Id. at 129; see also In re Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 173-74 (2014).

At the SVPA commitment hearing, the State has the burden of proving that the offender poses a threat "to the health and safety of others because of the likelihood of his or her engaging in sexually violent acts." W.Z., supra, 173 N.J. at 132. The State must prove that threat "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." Ibid. To commit or continue to commit the individual, the court must address the offender's present "serious difficulty with control over dangerous sexual behavior[,]" and the State must establish "that it is highly likely that" the individual will reoffend "by clear and convincing evidence." Id. at 132-34; 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).

Once an individual has been committed under the SVPA, a court must conduct an annual review hearing to determine whether the individual will be released or remain in treatment. N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.35. The burden remains upon the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the individual continues to be a sexually violent predator, as defined in the SVPA and interpreted in W.Z., supra, 173 N.J. at 126-32. However, "an individual should be released when a court is convinced that he or she will not have serious difficulty controlling sexually violent behavior and will be highly likely to comply with [a] plan for safe reintegration into the community." Id. at 130.

Our Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that an appellate court's scope of review of a judgment for commitment under the SVPA "is extremely narrow." R.F., supra, 217 N.J. at 174 (quoting In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31, 58 (1996)). We must "give deference to the findings of our trial judges because they have the 'opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the "feel" of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964)). Moreover, "[t]he judges who hear SVPA cases generally are 'specialists' and 'their expertise in the subject' is entitled to 'special deference.'" Ibid. (quoting In re Civil Commitment of T.J.N., 390 N.J. Super. 218, 226 (App. Div. 2007)). Accordingly, a SVPA trial judge's determination either to commit or release an individual is accorded substantial deference and should not be modified by an appellate court "unless the record reveals a clear mistake." R.F., supra, 217 N.J. at 175 (internal citations omitted). "So long as the trial court's findings are supported by 'sufficient credible evidence present in the record,' those findings should not be disturbed." Ibid. (quoting Johnson, supra,, 42 N.J. at 162); see also In re Civil Commitment of J.M.B., 197 N.J. 563, 597, cert. denied, 558 U.S. 999, 130 S. Ct. 509, 175 L. Ed. 2d 361 (2009).

Applying this limited scope of review here, we affirm the judge's order of continued commitment. The proofs adduced by the State clearly demonstrate that G.G.N. continues to suffer from a mental abnormality and personality disorder predisposing him to commit acts of sexual violence and that, given the absence of treatment effect, G.G.N. is highly likely to recidivate if not confined for continued treatment. The judge's conclusions are amply supported by the evidence and consistent with the law governing SVPA proceedings.

G.G.N. argues that the judge used the wrong legal standard in continuing his commitment. G.G.N.'s argument is belied by the record. Judge Freedman carefully scrutinized the expert testimony and the documentary evidence, soundly explained his reasons for accepting or rejecting the proofs, applied the correct legal standard and clearly delineated why he was continuing G.G.N.'s commitment, rather than the conditional discharge planning process that he had previously authorized.

G.G.N. also contends that the trial court erred in not affording more weight to his expert's testimony, and not rejecting Dr. Canataro's biased testimony as unreliable. The trial court had the prerogative as the fact-finder to find the State's experts more credible than G.G.N.'s. Where qualified experts present opposing opinions on disputed issues, the trier of fact is free to accept the testimony or opinion of one expert and reject the other, as occurred here. Brown v. Brown, 348 N.J. Super. 466, 478 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 174 N.J. 193 (2002). See also Model Jury Charge (Civil) 1.13 "Expert Testimony" (2009) and 1.13(B) "Optional Charge in Case of Conflicting Expert Testimony" (2009). Moreover, we accord deference to the judge's credibility assessment because he had the opportunity to hear and see the witness. Accordingly, we affirm the order of continued commitment, substantially for the reasons articulated at length by Judge Freedman in his June 17, 2014 oral opinion.

Affirmed.

1 G.G.N.'s commitment was continued following annual review hearings conducted from 2007 to the present. Beginning in 2008, judgments for continued commitment of G.G.N. included provisions for comprehensive discharge planning.

2 G.G.N. admitted to an additional rape of a twenty-nine-year-old woman, but the charge was reportedly dismissed pursuant to the terms of his 1981 plea agreement. G.G.N. has since also admitted to a date rape in 1979, to forced intercourse with two girls while he was in high school, and to molesting a seven-year-old girl when he was about twelve-years-old by interrupting her while she was using the bathroom and pushing her panties to the side in order to look at and possibly touch her vagina.

3 Modified Activities Program (MAP) is a "component of the clinical treatment program at the STU that focuses on stabilizing disruptive or dangerous behaviors." M.X.L. v. N.J. Dep't of Human Servs., N.J. Dep't of Corr., 379 N.J. Super. 37, 45-6 (App. Div. 2005).

4 The members of the TPRC are psychologists responsible for review of the progress and treatment of persons committed to the STU.

5 The Static-99R is an actuarial test used to estimate the probability of sexually violent recidivism in adult males previously convicted of sexually violent offenses. See Andrew Harris et al., Static- 99 Coding Rules Rev.sed-2003 5 (2003). Our Supreme Court has explained that "actuarial information, including the Static-99, is 'simply a factor to consider, weigh, or even reject, when engaging in the necessary factfinding under the SVPA.'" In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 164 n. 9 (2014) (quoting In re Commitment of R.S., 173 N.J. 134, 137 (2002)).

6 G.G.N. challenged the positive drug tests. The judge ruled that the STU was prohibited from taking any adverse action against G.G.N. as a result of the drug testing because the results were not properly verified.

7 G.G.N. disputed threatening the resident. The judge acknowledged having "serious questions" about whether G.G.N. actually threatened the resident, but faulted G.G.N. for "getting involved in business that wasn't his."