Civil Commitment: Court Decisions: November 2015

Sex predator committed to state hospital

11-23-2015 California:

A sexual predator from Porterville was committed Friday to a state hospital for the rest of his life.

On Friday, a Tulare County jury found that Rickie Silguero Coronado, 51, of Porterville, is a Sexually Violent Predator under the Sexually Violent Predator Act.

In 2002, Coronado was convicted of one count of sodomy by use of force and two counts of forcible oral copulation of a 15-year-old male victim.

In October 1995, the California Legislature enacted the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVP), effective Jan. 1, 1996. The SVP Act permits civil commitment of dangerous mentally disordered individuals. When describing the underlying purpose of this act, the Legislature noted that there exists a small but extremely dangerous group of sexually violent predators that have diagnosable mental disorders who can be identified while incarcerated, explained the district attorney’s office.

“These persons are not safe to be at large and if released represent a danger to the health and safety of others in that they are likely to engage in acts of sexual violence. Thus, the Legislature intended that these individuals be confined and treated until such time that it can be determined that they no longer present a threat to society,” reported the DA’s office

11-27-15 Washington:

CHEHALIS – The Lewis County Sheriff’s Office wants residents to know a level three registered sex offender has moved to north Centralia.

Garth D. Snively, 66, now resides on the 1200 block of Logan Street.

Public notification of where registered sex offenders reside is intended to enhance public safety, according to the sheriff’s office. Level three is the designation for individuals deemed most likely to reoffend.

Snively is a clear risk to re-offend, according to the sheriff’s office.

Snively served a prison term after his 1994 convictions for two counts of first-degree child molestation and one count of indecent liberties, according to the sheriff’s office. His victim was an 11-year-old boy he met while he was a Sunday school teacher at a church in Snohomish County, according to sheriff’s detective Jamey McGinty. He is not wanted.

4-8-2013 New Jersey:

A prison medical provider must face claims that it waited over a year to diagnose a sexually violent predator with level 2 melanoma, a federal judge ruled.

Michael Hasher has been committed to New Jersey's Special Treatment Unit as a sexually violent predator since 2004. Correctional Medical Services (CMS), a private company, provided medical care there until Oct. 1, 2008.

Hasher claims that CMS personnel have treated him for such chronic conditions as dizziness, hearing difficulty, blurry vision and weakness since February 2007. At that time, Hasher allegedly reported a black growth on his left temple to Dr. Ahab Gabriel, who was supervised by Dr. Herbert Smyczek, the CMS medical director.

Hasher claimed that CMS nevertheless ignored the warning signs until an outside dermatologist, described only as Dr. Manhong in the complaint, diagnosed him on sight with level 2 melanoma in April 2008. He said a biopsy report later confirmed, the diagnosis with depth of invasion of at least 0.5 mm.

On May 20, an ear, nose and throat specialist, Dr. Sadeq Razvi, recommended that Hasher undergo plastic surgery with a wide excision. Dr. Shar, as he is described in the complaint, removed the quarter-size melanoma at St. Francis Hospital on July 7. He allegedly said that Hasher's history of dizziness and ear problems could be a result of metastasis to the brain and recommended an MRI and CAT scan.

Hasher then filed a federal complaint against Correctional Medical Services, Drs. Gabriel and Smyczek, as well as the New Jersey Department of Corrections' former commissioner, George Hayman, and the Special Treatment Unit's former administrator, Bernard Goodwin, for delaying his medical treatment for over a year. Hasher sought a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

3-20-2013 New Jersey:

In the matter of Civil Commitment of L.M.R.
No. A-1200-12T2.

The State appeals from an October 18, 2012 order declining to continue L.M.R.'s civil commitment pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to-27.38, and ordering his release from the Special Treatment Unit (STU). By order dated November 15, 2012, we stayed L.M.R.'s release and expedited this appeal. Having reviewed the record, we now affirm the order on appeal.

I.
In 2003, L.M.R. (defendant) pled guilty to second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a. He was sentenced to seven years in prison, half to be served without parole, plus community supervision for life (CSL) pursuant to Megan's Law. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4d. The guilty plea was based on a 2002 incident in which defendant, who was intoxicated at the time, attempted to sexually assault his paramour's fourteen-year-old daughter. L.M.R. desisted after the victim's younger brother came into the room and interrupted the assault. Defendant was evaluated at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC), but was found not to be a repetitive and compulsive sex offender, in part because he had no prior arrests or convictions for sexual offenses.1

In his ADTC report, Dr. Mark Frank discounted defendant's explanation of the incident. Defendant claimed that he did not attempt to have sex with the victim but only entered her bedroom in the hope that she would tell her mother, who in turn would "call the police and have him arrested." Defendant said he wanted to get arrested because he needed substance abuse treatment. Dr. Frank noted defendant's long history of substance abuse; he recommended intensive treatment for that problem, plus psychotherapy to help L.M.R. understand why he committed the offense and avoid a recurrence. ... ... ...

Further, a sexually violent predator is one who "suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person [highly] 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 (emphasis added); W.Z., supra, 173 N.J. at 133-34. Nothing in that definition suggests that a judge cannot consider a sex offender's entire situation in determining whether he needs to be confined in the STU or can be released following an initial commitment hearing. In fact, the State's reply brief concedes that "external factors like CSL may be considered by experts among the many factors examined in determining whether an offender is capable of controlling his sexually violent behaviors." We conclude that is what happened in this case. On this record, we find no error in the judge considering CSL as one of an array of factors bearing on whether L.M.R. can live in the community without being highly likely to commit additional sexual offenses.

As L.M.R. himself acknowledged to Dr. Stewart, it is very important that he refrain from drugs and alcohol when released, because those are dis-inhibitors that may make him more likely to relapse into offending. The parole supervision available through CSL is one mechanism to require regular drug testing, as well as outpatient sex offender therapy. CSL also allows the State to place appropriate limitations on where L.M.R. lives and works. And it is a particularly powerful form of supervision because failure to comply may result in L.M.R.'s arrest and incarceration. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4d.4 Moreover, as we were advised at oral argument, the same parole officers supervise offenders paroled on CSL and persons released from the STU on conditional discharge. We find nothing inappropriate in Judge Mulvihill, having found that L.M.R. was not highly likely to re-offend, nonetheless making some sensible recommendations as to the conditions of his parole supervision.

Accordingly, we vacate the stay previously entered in this matter, and order that L.M.R. be released from the STU no later than ten days after the date of this opinion. We extend the stay for that limited period to (a) permit L.M.R.'s assigned parole officer to meet with L.M.R. at the STU prior to his release, should the officer choose to do so; and (b) permit the orderly disposition of a stay application to the Supreme Court, should the State decide to promptly file such a motion. We do not, however, recommend that any further stay be granted.

Affirmed. ..Source..

New Jersey's top court broadens ability to institutionalize sexual predators

2-23-2009 New Jersey:

A person can be involuntarily committed to an institution under the state's Violent Sexual Predators Act even if the crimes were not overtly sexual, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

The justices, in a 5-2 decision, said the state Attorney General's Office was justified in seeking a civil commitment in January 2004 for a man identified as J.M.B., who was convicted of crimes in which he kidnapped or assaulted six victims between the ages of 10 and 21 during a span of two decades.

He did not sexually assault any of the victims, but typically would bind their hands and feet and in some cases cut off their hair. He also told investigators that he found his victims' bondage "sexually arousing" and three expert witnesses said J.M.B. suffered from "sexual sadism."

The justices ruled the Violent Sexual Predators Act provides for a civil commitment to an institution following the completion of a criminal sentence for overtly sexual crimes, such as sexual assault, and for other offenses which, "based on the circumstances of the case...should be considered a sexually violent offense."

The justices ruled that in one instance in particular, J.M.B.'s offense met the substantially equivalent conduct standard. In that case, J.M.B. kidnapped a 16-year-old, bound, gagged and blindfolded him, knocked him unconscious and "ripped out or cut" the victim's hair before abandoning him in a wooded area.

Five justices, in an opinion written by Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, said the Attorney General only had to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that J.M.B.'s conduct should be considered a violent sexual offense.

In a dissent, Justices Barry T. Albin and John E. Wallace Jr. said the Attorney General ought to have been required to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt," the tougher legal standard required for criminal convictions, that J.M.B.'s conduct should be considered sexually violent in seeking a potential lifetime civil commitment. ..News Source.. by Rudy Larini /The Star-Ledger

New Jersey sex offender's continued confinement is ruled constitutional in 5-2 decision

11-11-2010 New Jersey:

When a man convicted for multiple sex crimes was sentenced to prison, he requested specialized therapy but was denied when a psychologist said he didn’t meet the criteria.

Years later, the same psychologist and others recommended that the man be civilly committed instead of freed after his prison term was up, saying he still posed a danger — in part because he hadn’t received any therapy.

The decision struck critics as incongruous, and the man — referred to only by his initials W.X.C. in court documents — appealed his case to the Supreme Court, saying his continued confinement is unconstitutional.

But the New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed Tuesday, keeping the man incarcerated.

The court, in a 5-2 opinion, said just because some offenders do not meet the criteria for treatment within the prison system does not mean they cannot be civilly committed at the end of their prison terms. More than 400 sex offenders are committed at two facilities in Avenel after the state determined they are highly likely to commit new crimes.

"The fatal flaw in defendant’s argument lies in its failure to appreciate that the two statutes are designed to serve different purposes and strive to achieve them through different regulatory mechanisms," wrote Justice Helen Hoens in the majority opinion. "The operation of the (Sexually Violent Predator Act) is neither punitive nor fundamentally unfair."

While dissenting Justices Barry Albin and Virginia Long said the man should not be released, they blasted the state’s policy as a "charade."

"Although generally the state may not be obliged to provide sex offender specific therapy to those imprisoned, the deprivation of treatment takes on constitutional significance when it is used to civilly commit a person," Albin wrote. "The state cannot deny an inmate sex-offender specific treatment and then use his failure to receive such treatment as the basis for his civil commitment."

The sex offender in this case was accused of raping two women while burglarizing their homes in 1992. He was arrested while sexually attacking a woman in a nursing home.

He pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual assault and other crimes. At sentencing, the man asked to be sent to the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center, the state’s only prison specifically for sex offenders, to receive therapy. But the state’s evaluation said he did not meet the criteria because, as a sex offender, he was only repetitive, not compulsive.

After 11 years in prison, the man was evaluated again. The same psychologist who said he was ineligible for treatment at Avenel recommended that the state review his case for possible civil commitment, saying he "does not appear to have had any appreciable sex-offender specific psychotherapy."

The man was civilly committed in 2007. One doctor wrote that he has "not moderated his risk through treatment. He has not had treatment for his sexually inappropriate behavior."

The court’s decision was praised Tuesday by the state attorney general’s office.

"The majority’s decision correctly recognized that the Sexually Violent Predator Act serves an important public purpose and is neither punitive nor unfair as applied to sexual predators too dangerous to be released to the community," Senior Deputy Attorney General Mary Beth Wood said.

The man is now confined at one of the Special Treatment Units in Avenal where he is receiving treatment, said Joan Van Pelt, the former deputy public advocate who presented his case to the Supreme Court.

"He’s clearly made significant progress in the program over a relatively short period of time," she said. "It’s somewhat ironic, because that means had he gotten treatment while he was in prison, it was less likely he would have been referred for civil commitment." ..Source.. by Chris Megerian / Statehouse Bureau

In the Matter of Civil Commitment of ED

6-15-2005 New Jersey:

In the Matter of Civil Commitment of ED

This appeal presents us with the opportunity to address a challenge to the procedures used to revoke a committee's conditional discharge and to recommit under the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predator Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-72.24 to -27.38 (the Act).

We upheld the constitutionality of the Act in In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 801 A.2d 205 (2002). We now hold that due process requires the State to give the committee written notice of each asserted violation, and that prior to recommitment under the Act the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence the person is highly likely to reoffend.

... ... ...

We reverse and remand for a hearing consistent with the views expressed herein.

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R.F. SVP 490-08.

3-19-2014 New Jersey:

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R.F. SVP 490-08.

Before the State can deprive a person of his freedom, either in a criminal trial or a civil commitment hearing, the State must satisfy a high standard of proof. Under the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA or Act), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to-27.38, a person previously convicted of a sexual offense can be civilly committed only if the State can establish by clear and convincing evidence that he suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him highly likely to commit a sexually violent offense.

The experienced judges assigned to hear these cases have the difficult task of assessing expert testimony that often is in conflict, making factfindings about events described from varying viewpoints, and ultimately predicting the probability of a person's future conduct. In the balance, an individual's right to liberty is weighed against society's interest in public safety.

In this case, R.F., when he was seventeen years old, engaged in sexual conduct with two children, ages twelve and thirteen. He pled guilty in adult court to endangering the welfare of both children and was sentenced to a five-year term at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center at Avenel (ADTC or Avenel). Before R.F. completed his sentence, the State petitioned to have R.F. civilly committed under the SVPA.

At an SVPA commitment hearing, the Honorable Serena J. Perretti, J.S.C., sifted through a ream of documentary evidence and heard testimony from three expert witnesses, two for the State and one for R.F. Although Judge Perretti found that R.F. committed predicate sexual offenses and suffered from a personality disorder, she concluded that the State had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that R.F. was highly likely to engage in sexually violent behavior if not civilly committed.

In coming to the decision that the State had not met the evidentiary standard for SVPA commitment, Judge Perretti made specific findings of fact and ultimately placed decisive weight on R.F.'s expert. She also made clear that R.F. is subject to parole supervision for life, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4; N.J.A.C. 10A:71-6.12. R.F., moreover, must also comply with a discharge plan prepared by the Special Treatment Unit (STU) where he has been civilly committed.

... ... ...

Judge Perretti's determination that the State did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that R.F. was highly likely to sexually reoffend unless institutionalized is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. Her findings are not clearly mistaken and are entitled to deference. We therefore reverse the Appellate Division and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In light of the passage of more than five years between Judge Perretti's decision and our resolution today, we will stay the release of R.F. for thirty days to allow the State to file a new petition if there are any changed circumstances or conditions that would warrant civil commitment. On his release, R.F. will be subject to a discharge plan and parole supervision for life.

Lawsuit: Van Orden v Meyers

2-10-2015 Missouri:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. No. 345) to reconsider the Court's October 17, 2014 Memorandum and Order (Doc. No. 338) granting Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' cruel and unusual punishment and double jeopardy claims. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion shall be denied.

BACKGROUND

This class action, filed by civilly committed residents of the Missouri Department of Mental Health's Sexual Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services ("SORTS") facilities, raises constitutional and statutory challenges regarding

(1) the care and treatment, or lack thereof, provided to SORTS residents by state officials; and
(2) the state's statutory scheme requiring reimbursement from SORTS residents for the costs of their allegedly inadequate care and treatment.

On October 17, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint (the "complaint"). Plaintiffs' complaint asserted several 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, and an alternative claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.

Specifically, Plaintiffs challenged their care and treatment at SORTS on substantive due process, cruel and unusual punishment, double jeopardy, and ADA grounds; and they challenged the state's reimbursement scheme on substantive due process, equal protection, procedural due process, unreasonable seizure of property, and ex post facto grounds.

The Court held that Plaintiffs' complaint stated substantive due process and ADA claims for lack of adequate care and treatment, and substantive due process and equal protection claims for unlawful reimbursement. (Doc. No. 338.)

However, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' other claims.

With respect to Plaintiffs' cruel and unusual punishment and double jeopardy claims, the Court held that, because Plaintiffs are civilly, rather than criminally, committed, their inadequate care and treatment allegations should be addressed under the Due Process Clause, rather than the Cruel and Unusual Punishment or Double Jeopardy Clauses, of the U.S. Constitution. Id. Plaintiffs challenge that ruling in their motion for reconsideration.

According to Plaintiffs, SORTS is a prison disguised as a mental health facility, and its purpose is to punish, not treat. Plaintiffs argue that the punitive nature of SORTS brings Plaintiffs' claims within the scope of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Double Jeopardy Clauses.

... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, and those stated in the Court's October 17, 2014 Memorandum and Order (Doc. No. 338), the Court finds that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Defendants' implementation of the Missouri SVP statute, and the conditions of Plaintiffs' confinement thereunder, state valid due process claims, but not cruel and unusual punishment or double jeopardy claims.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Doc. No. 345.)

..Full Decision HERE.. ..

Sex offender faces a different kind of limbo

2006 to 2014 in jail, no hearing then in 2014 he won and was released. Roughly 9-years of his life wasted; story had to be told.

2-19-2014 Missouri:

STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY • There is a special wing here at the county jail that holds nine detainees who were convicted long ago for sex crimes. They already served their time in prison.

Still, they wear bright orange jumpsuits as they await another kind of trial.

Flagged as possible sexually violent predators, the Missouri attorney general’s office wants them held indefinitely at a secure state mental institution called Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services, or SORTS.

But first, in most of their cases, juries will be asked to make a rare decision in the American legal system — keep them locked away on the expectation of another crime.

“Somebody with a crystal ball believes I may commit a crime in the future. And they want to lock me up for the rest of my life in a mental institution out of fear,” detainee Macon Baker said from jail last week.

Baker, 49, who had a condo in Ballwin before going to prison in 1997, compared the civil commitment legal procedure to throwing a DWI offender in prison before getting pulled over for a repeat offense.

2-21-2014 Missouri:

An enormous sigh of relief lifted from Macon Baker in court here Friday evening when a jury determined that he is not a sexually violent predator. Three previous attempts to commit him against his will to state mental health authorities ended in hung juries.

“Thank you,” Baker, 49, who used to live in the Ballwin area, said, looking toward the jury. Face flushed with emotion, he offered more thanks and hugs to his attorneys, Matt Fry and Eric Selig, also in shock.

Baker has been in custody since he finished a 10-year prison sentence near the end of 2006 for molesting a 7-year-old girl. At the time, a panel of prosecutors and mental health officials thought he should be held indefinitely at Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services, or SORTS, a controversial program run by the Missouri Department of Mental Health.

But the first three juries couldn’t come to the needed unanimous decision that Baker has a “mental abnormality” that makes him “more likely than not” to commit future acts of sexual violence if not held in a secure facility.

6-18-2014 Missouri:

A state appeals court agreed on Tuesday with a child molester’s claim that an assessment by a panel of experts should have been allowed as evidence before he was locked up indefinitely as a sexually violent predator.

The multidisciplinary panel of mental health and criminal justice professionals had unanimously agreed that Lester Bradley did not meet Missouri’s definition of a sexually violent predator. But during his civil commitment trial, the state attorney general’s office blocked the report, arguing that the information was inadmissible per state statute. A probate judge agreed.

A Jackson County jury later determined Bradley was a sexually violent predator who should be committed for treatment in a secure facility.

“Because the court erred in determining that the assessment was inadmissible ... we reverse the probate court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings,” Western District appeals court judge Karen King Mitchell wrote in her 3-0 opinion.

7-16-2012 Massachusetts:

The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that an accused sex offender’s refusal to undergo treatment may under some circumstances not be admitted in civil commitment proceedings.

“[A]lthough evidence that a defendant in an SDP civil commitment proceeding did not receive sex offender treatment is admissible, we conclude that it is error to admit evidence that a defendant refused sex offender treatment where he could receive such treatment only by waiving confidentiality,” Justice Ralph D. Gants wrote for a unanimous court (Commonwealth v Hunt).

“Where sex offender treatment is conditioned on a waiver of confidentiality, refusal of treatment alone is insufficient to support an inference that the prisoner does not want to be treated,” the SJC reasoned. “If the Commonwealth were to provide sex offender therapy without requiring a waiver of confidentiality, then this inference arising from refusal would be fair and reasonable.” ..Source.. by Mass. Lawyers Weekly

SJC broadens law on noncontact lewd behavior

3-22-2014 Massachusetts:

The state’s highest court ruled Friday that offenders who commit lewd acts without physically contacting their victims can nonetheless be declared sexually dangerous and continue to be imprisoned after their sentence has been served, broadening the reach of the state’s sexual offender law.

The unanimous Supreme Judicial Court decision upheld a 2012 ruling declaring Harold Fay a sexually dangerous person, even though his six convictions for sexual offenses did not involve direct physical contact with his victims.

The court ruled that Fay’s sexual misconduct put his victims in fear that they would be subjected to a physical sexual offense, justifying his commitment to a treatment center.

“Protecting children from exposure to such conduct by persons suffering from a mental disorder who, as a consequence, are likely to engage in the conduct falls well within constitutional boundaries,” the court held.

6-15-2014 Massachusetts:

The state’s Supreme Judicial Court this week ruled that Level 3 sex offender David Gangi can no longer be held as a sexually dangerous person because it’s unlawful and unconstitutional.

By a unanimous 7-0 vote, the justices ruled that Gangi, 75, who was convicted of sexually assaulting a 22-year-old man at his Andover apartment in 2005, can no longer be kept at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for sexually dangerous persons, according to the decision issued Wednesday.

Gangi’s decision was handed down the same day the SJC ruled a state law created “community parole for life” for sex offenders was unconstitutional. Only judges can impose additional jail time on sex offenders who have completed their original sentences, according to the ruling.

In addition to the 2005 incident, Gangi also had sexual assault convictions in 1992 and 1993 involving 14-and 15-year-old boys and was previously described by Superior Court Judge Leila Kern as “someone with a sex addiction who can’t control himself.”

11-14-2010 Massachusetts:

Feeley says exhibitionist is not dangerous because crime 'not one of sexual violence'

SALEM — Like most other states, Massachusetts has a law aimed at keeping dangerous sex offenders deemed likely to commit new crimes off the streets.

But should that law allowing judges to keep "sexually dangerous persons" in custody after they complete their sentences include people like Donald Sauve, a chronic exhibitionist convicted repeatedly of masturbating in public but not for any violent crime?

Earlier this month, a Salem Superior Court judge said it should not.

On Nov. 4, Judge Timothy Feeley granted a motion by Sauve's lawyer to dismiss the civil commitment petition filed by prosecutors, saying it violates Sauve's due process rights under the Constitution.

Feeley found that while Sauve met the definition of a "sexually dangerous person" under the state law, that law, amended in 2004 to include nonviolent offenses like Sauve's, is unconstitutional.

9-2-2014 Massachusetts:

In Massachusetts, sexually dangerous persons (SDPs), sex offenders who have been ordered to civil commitment, reside in the Massachusetts Treatment Center in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. In 1974, following lawsuits alleging "medieval" conditions at the Center, a district count entered consent decrees ordering the Center to shape up. In 1999, the district court concluded that the problems had been remedied and terminated the consent decrees, but still made the Center subject to a settlement plan.

In 2001, Jeffrey Healey brought suit to enforce the provisions of the plan and to allege constitutional violations. After more litigation and two trials, the district court found that it had breached the terms of the plan by failing to provide "adequate pharmacological evaluation and treatment." This appeal followed, where the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (DOC) wanted the determination in Healey's favor reversed, along with a determination that the settlement plan wasn't an enforceable order.

Impossibility defense, by the state, artfully worded! Amazing, sounds like he has grounds for resentencing.

2-12-2012 Nebraska:

LINCOLN, Neb. -- The Nebraska Supreme Court has affirmed the mental health commitment of a convicted sex offender.

The offender, referenced only as "S.C." in the appeal, was convicted in 2008 of sexual assault of a child and sentenced to five years. His sentencing stipulated he must complete a sex offender treatment program while in prison or be subject to commitment at the end of his sentence.

The offender argued in his appeal that he had been willing to undergo treatment, but was told it was available only at the Lincoln prison. He was denied a request to transfer there, because he had a relative who worked at the Lincoln prison.

The state's high court upheld his commitment, saying the offender had "no absolute right" to treatment while in prison. ..Source.. by KETV7.com

Nebraska Supreme Court says mental health board must reconsider sex offender's commitment

Most important here is the court holding "Forced incriminating statements, cannot later be used against the person in a criminal procedure." i.e. In the Civil commitment hearing, they CANNOT used previously forced incriminating statements (Here: forced admission of guilt in order to get into sex offender therapy during a earlier period of probation).

5-14-2011 Nebraska:

LINCOLN, Neb. — A state mental health board must reconsider a case in which it ordered a convicted sex offender held for treatment following his prison sentence, under a Nebraska Supreme Court opinion issued Friday.

The state high court's decision reversed a ruling by a Dawson County District judge in the case of a man convicted in the early 1990s of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl.

Shortly before the man — referred to in court documents only as "A.M. Jr." — was scheduled to be released from prison in 2008, the state asked that a local mental-health board deem him a dangerous sex offender.

Using the evaluation of three state psychologists, the board concluded that A.M. was at risk of re-offending and committed him to inpatient treatment.

A.M. appealed, objecting to — among other things — the board's allowance of testimony from the psychologists about statements and other facts gathered from his 1992 third-degree sex assault conviction. A.M. was sentenced to probation in that case, but the conviction was later vacated.

Take note, this commitment is based on "ATTEMPTED" sex crimes. This is now the third one we have found using "attempted" as the state's basis.

2-7-2013 Arizona:

In re Commitment of Knott
No. 2 CA-MH 2012-0010-SP.

In July 2012, a jury found appellant Derek Knott to be a sexually violent person (SVP) pursuant to Arizona's Sexually Violent Persons Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 through 36-3717. The trial court committed Knott to the custody of the Arizona Department of Health Services for placement in a licensed facility under the supervision of the Arizona State Hospital. On appeal, Knott challenges the court's denial of his motion for directed verdict, arguing there was insufficient evidence he had been convicted of a sexually violent offense or that he had a mental disorder that made it highly probable he would engage in future sexually violent acts, and argues the court erred when it committed him in the absence of a unanimous jury verdict. He asks that we reverse the judgment that he is a SVP and order his release. We affirm for the reasons stated below.

Take note, this commitment is based on "ATTEMPTED" sex crimes. This is now the third one we have found using "attempted" as the state's basis.

1-17-2013 Arizona:

In re Commitment of Allen
No. 2 CA-MH 2012-0007-SP.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Charles Allen was convicted of two counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor and sentenced to a fourteen-year prison term. Before the prison term was completed, the state filed a petition pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3704 and, after a two-day trial in May 2012, a jury found Allen a sexually violent person (SVP), see A.R.S. § 36-3701(7), and the trial court ordered him committed to the Arizona Department of Health Services for placement and treatment in a licensed facility under the control of the Arizona State Hospital. Allen filed a motion for new trial, which the court denied. This appeal challenges the trial court's denial of the motion.

2-7-2013 Arizona:

In July 2012, a jury found appellant Derek Knott to be a sexually violent person (SVP) pursuant to Arizona's Sexually Violent Persons Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 through 36-3717. The trial court committed Knott to the custody of the Arizona Department of Health Services for placement in a licensed facility under the supervision of the Arizona State Hospital.

On appeal, Knott challenges the court's denial of his motion for directed verdict, arguing there was insufficient evidence he had been convicted of a sexually violent offense or that he had a mental disorder that made it highly probable he would engage in future sexually violent acts, and argues the court erred when it committed him in the absence of a unanimous jury verdict. He asks that we reverse the judgment that he is a SVP and order his release.

We affirm for the reasons stated below.

... ... ...

..Source.. by Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, Department A.

Court orders release of sex offender who didn't get trial in civil case following prison term

11-29-2013 Arizona:

PHOENIX — A man accused of being sexually violent must go free because authorities violated his rights by failing to timely schedule a trial, an Arizona appellate court ruled Friday.

The state Court of Appeals said Steven Lane Fuller was entitled to have a trial within 120 days and that a delay of more than a year means he went without treatment that might have resulted in his release.

Fuller was discharged from the state prison system in January 2012 after serving sentences for Pima County convictions for public sexual indecency and indecent exposure.

He was immediately transferred to the state mental hospital in Phoenix. That was after a Pinal County Superior Court judge granted prosecutor's request that Fuller be committed for civil proceedings on whether Fuller should receive treatment for sexual violence.

2-14-2014 North Carolina, Arizona:

Federal judge had brushed off evidence of Native man's rehabilitation

In a strongly worded ruling, a federal appellate panel has ordered that a Native American man be freed from civil confinement due to evidence of his rehabilitation while in prison. Both a judge and an expert witness had downplayed this evidence, condemning the man as a future risk based on long-ago transgressions, the Fourth Circuit panel concluded.

Byron Neil Antone, a 41-year-old member of the Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona, was intoxicated when he committed a series of sexual assaults during his early adulthood. Over the course of 14 years in prison, he remained sober, worked hard, and took other steps to rehabilitate himself.

In finding that he met criteria for civil commitment as a Sexually Dangerous Person (SDP), a federal judge had glossed over the evidence of Antone's rehabilitation, including positive testimony from two prison counselors. Likewise, a government evaluator testified that she placed little weight on Antone’s good prison conduct in determining whether he lacked “volitional control” over his sexual impulses.

5-20-2011 Nebraska:

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A Lancaster County District court did not err in approving the mental health commitment of a convicted sex offender deemed likely to re-offend, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in an opinion released Friday.

The state high court's decision upheld the ruling in the case of a man convicted in 1991 of raping a woman in her home after he spotted her sunbathing on her balcony. The man — listed in court documents only as "D.H." — was to be released from prison in 2009, but a local mental health board deemed him a dangerous sex offender likely to rape again.

The board based its determination on the testimony of two psychologists who evaluated D.H. and diagnosed him with paraphilia, a psychiatric disorder marked by deviant sexual behavior, and anti-social personality disorder. Court documents show the psychologists administered several tests to D.H., and that he scored in the high-risk category for committing a future sex offense.

12-12-2014 Nebraska:

An inmate took a warden and two Tecumseh state prison staff members to trial in Lincoln this week, alleging they violated his rights by blocking him from getting mail from an out-of-state sex offender treatment center they mistook for a prison.

But in the end, the jurors who heard Christopher Payne's case against Fred Britten, Michelle Capps and Catherine Peters didn't decide it.

Lancaster County District Judge Jodi Nelson dismissed his case before closing arguments, saying that while Payne had offered evidence of a possible constitutional violation, he didn't offer "one shred of evidence" he suffered any damages as a result.

It would be improper, she said, for the jury to speculate.

In addition, Nelson found that Britten, Capps and Peters were entitled to qualified immunity, which shields government officials whose conduct doesn't violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known.

The case stemmed from an August 2011 letter addressed to Payne that Peters, a mail specialist at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution, blocked. The letter was from a man at a sex offender treatment center in Moose Lake, Minnesota, and a stamp on the envelope said it had been mailed from a "secure treatment facility."

11-3-2011 New Hampshire:

The state Supreme Court yesterday upheld the 2007 law that allows the state to detain the most dangerous sex offenders past their prison sentences.

In an unanimous decision, the court affirmed the 2009 commitment of William Ploof, the first sex offender ordered held under the law. The justices rejected Ploof's arguments that the law violates constitutional protections because it doesn't require the same rules of evidence or burden of proof as criminal cases.

"(Ploof) argues that the procedures contained in (the law) carry the risk of erroneous deprivation of his liberty interests," the court said. "However, the statute affords a number of safeguards designed to protect against erroneous commitment." Among those protections, the court said, are the rights to counsel, an unanimous jury verdict, state-paid experts and an independent mental health assessment.

Ploof, 52, has been held and treated at the state's Secure Psychiatric Unit since his commitment in 2009, but he faces more prison time on another case. Ploof was convicted last month in Coos County on new charges of raping and attempting to rape a boy in the early 1980s. Ploof has not been sentenced on the new convictions.

Christopher Johnson, the public appellate defender who argued Ploof's appeal, can ask the justices to reconsider. He was out of the office yesterday and could not be reached. Thomas Bocian, who fought Ploof's appeal for the state attorney general's office, was also out of the office yesterday.

Michael Valentine, the Hillsborough County prosecutor who presented the commitment case against Ploof, said his office was pleased with the court's finding. "When sex offenders max out of prison untreated and unsupervised, they represent a real risk to the community," Valentine said by email. "Civil commitment is an important tool for protecting the public from sexually violent predators."

6-30-2013 New Hampshire:

The New Hampshire Supreme Court on Friday upheld the convictions of a violent sexual predator who argued prosecutors did not definitively identify him as the culprit because he did not attend his own trial.

William Ploof, 53, also contended a mistrial should have been called when a witness made a comment that, "This guy is a multiple offender," indicating he had a criminal record.

The Supreme Court rejected both arguments.

According to the decision, Ploof was convicted of aggravated felonious sexual assault and conspiracy to commit aggravated felonious sexual assault in Coos County Superior Court. He was accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old boy between August 1982 and April 1983, at a time when the child and his friend sometimes associated with a group of men, which included Ploof, who gave them alcohol and marijuana.

On one of those days, after the friend left with another man and headed toward the bathroom, Ploof sexually assaulted the 12-year-old.

4-22-15 South Carolina:

A convicted rapist out of Berkeley County who was set to be released from prison in February has been civilly committed to the S.C. Department of Mental Health Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program.

Michael Myers, 40, a former resident of Moncks Corner, was sentenced to 30 years in prison after pleading guilty on Dec. 10, 1992 to criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, burglary in the first degree and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, according to a release from the S.C. Attorney General’s Office.

In February 1992, Myers forced his way into a 30-year-old woman’s apartment at knife-point and repeatedly raped her while forcing her 10-year-old son to watch, the release states. He also threatened to kill them.

Deputies with the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office responded to neighbors’ reports of screams coming from the apartment, and arrested Myers as he tried to run away.

Prior to his scheduled February 2014 release from prison, the state initiated an action under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, seeking Myers’ civil commitment to the S.C. Department of Mental Health for long-term control, care and treatment, according to the release.

9-26-2013 National:

Many sex offenders are held indefinitely past their sentence on a recidivism assessment that's almost impossible to challenge

Most people would think that once you have served a jail sentence, you are free to go. But that's not always the case.

When it comes to sex offenders, a number of states and the federal government have laws that allow them to keep you in jail, simply because they consider you a potential recidivist. Through a legal procedure called "civil commitment", you can be classed as a sexually violent predator based solely on the subjective opinion of a state-employed psychologist or sex expert.

Once placed under a civil commitment, you are essentially in prison indefinitely. This can quickly become a nightmare, particularly in instances such as an "agreed disposition'' – similar to a plea bargain in a criminal trial – where a person may have been pushed to waive his right to appeal (pdf) during negotiations.

No one knows for sure how many sex offenders there are in the US, but well over 747,000 people are listed on registries. Some are, indeed, pedophiles, but one third of offenders have committed their crime as children. The recidivism rate for sex offenders in general is low, with government statistics showing the rate at around 5%, versus 60% for all criminal activity.

6-14-2010 Virginia:

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) ― A federal appeals panel says sex offenders convicted in military court but housed by the Bureau of Prisons are not eligible for civil commitment.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Monday in the case of former Army officer Benjamin Barnard Joshua, who pleaded guilty in military court to sexually molesting children. He was transferred to a federal penitentiary because of military prison downsizing.

Eight days before his scheduled release, the attorney general petitioned for civil commitment under a 2006 law that allows indefinite detention of "sexually dangerous" inmates in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.

The appeals court upheld a judge's ruling that despite being physically housed by the Bureau of Prisons, Joshua remained in military custody and therefore was not subject to civil commitment. ..Source.. WJZ.com

Gibson v Commonwealth

4-17-2014 Virginia:

Gibson v Commonwealth

The Commonwealth filed a petition for the civil commitment of Donald Gibson as a sexually violent predator pursuant to the Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA), Code §§ 37.2-900 through -921.

After the fact finder determined that Gibson is a sexually violent predator, the circuit court shifted to Gibson the burden of proof to establish that he satisfies the criteria for conditional release.

Because the burden of proof does not shift, we will reverse the circuit court's judgment. ..Source.. by Virginia Supreme Court

Priest who assaulted boys to be released on supervision

6-25-2013 Illinois:

A former Catholic priest who sexually assaulted two boys in the 1980s will be released from a state mental health hospital after a judge approved of a conditional release plan.

He was committed to a secure treatment facility in 2012 after he was classified as a sexually violent person. He was recently re-evaluated and Winnebago County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Bissett approved a conditional release plan on Tuesday that would allow him to be released from the secure facility.

Details of the supervised released plan were sealed by the court under an agreement by the attorneys to keep the plan confidential, but it calls for him to be released on or before Aug. 2.

The former associate pastor at Our Lady of the Ridge parish in Chicago Ridge, Ill., was convicted of sexually assaulting two altar boys while on a church outing to Father Carr’s Place 2B in Oshkosh in 1986. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison on two second-degree sexual assault convictions in 1994.

Prosecutors filed the petition to classify him as a sexually violent person in October 2007, less than one month before his scheduled release from Stanley Correctional Institution. ..Source.. by Local News

'Sexually dangerous' man sent to mental facility

11-2-2013 Illinois:

A Jacksonville man has been found to be a sexually dangerous person and is being committed indefinitely for mental treatment.

Circuit Judge John Schmidt on Friday ordered James G. Howe, 34, be taken to an Illinois Department of Corrections facility for civil commitment under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, Scott County State’s Attorney Michael Hill said in a press release.

Earlier, the judge had found probable cause to proceed with a trial to determine whether Howe was a sexually violent person who should be committed to a treatment center until he is no longer considered a danger to the general public.

Howe had been charged with an aggravated criminal sexual assault on June 12, 2012, stemming from an incident that occurred Dec. 11, 2011, in Manchester. Hill then filed a petition to proceed under the act on Oct. 2, 2012, to have Howe evaluated by psychiatrists to determine if he was a sexually dangerous person. Special Assistant State’s Attorney Lorinda Lamken of the Illinois State’s Attorney’s Appellate Prosecutor’s Office worked with Hill throughout the proceedings.

4-24-15 Illinois:

A McHenry County judge on Friday ordered the civil commitment of a Woodstock convicted sex offender with an admitted sexual foot fetish.

Robert L. Bacci, 45, of Woodstock, was convicted on a 2013 charge of attempted criminal sexual abuse, and sentenced to three years in prison. He was set for release later this month, but because of the nature of his crimes, Bacci was eligible for commitment under the Sexually Violent Persons Act.

Bacci has an extensive criminal history, but in his most recent case, authorities said he approached a 5-year-old girl in a Woodstock laundromat. Bacci began talking to her about her shoes, and attempted to take off her shoes and socks, according to reports. Police said Bacci did this for purposes of sexual gratification.

In a hearing before McHenry County Judge Sharon Prather, a doctor hired by the Attorney General's Office who sought to have Bacci committed, said that Bacci suffers from a number of psychological disorders including fetishism, anti-social personality disorder, and drug and alcohol abuse.

4-23-2014 Minnesota:

The Minnesota Supreme Court has taken the unusual step of reversing the commitment of a man to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and sent the case back to a lower court for further proceedings.

The high court reaffirmed Wednesday that courts must find sex offenders "highly likely" to reoffend before civilly committing them to the secure treatment program, which is the subject of a constitutional challenge in federal court and debate at the Legislature. But the justices said judges need to make formal findings of fact on whether less restrictive treatment programs are available.

So the justices sent the case of Cedrick Scott Ince (INTS) back to Sibley County District Court for clarification. His lawyers say they'll argue he should be freed on intensive supervised release pending a final ruling. ..Source.. by STEVE KARNOWSKI

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Cedrick Scott Ince.
Court of Appeals.
1. The term “likely,” as used in the determination of whether a person is “likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct” under Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18c(a) (2012), does not indicate a defined numeric level of certainty or require that the fact-finder be substantially certain that the person will engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct. We continue to adhere to our previous construction of this provision, which requires evidence that the person is “highly likely” to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct. In re Linehan (Linehan III), 557 N.W.2d 171, 180 (Minn. 1996), vacated sub nom. Linehan v. Minnesota, 522 U.S. 1011 (1997).

2. The determination of whether an individual is highly likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct should be based on the multi-factor analysis for dangerousness prediction adopted in In re Linehan (Linehan I), 518 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1994), and all other evidence, including actuarial data, that the district court finds relevant and reliable. The relative weight provided to each Linehan factor and other evidence should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the district court.

3. Findings of fact that support the district court’s conclusions on the availability of a less restrictive treatment program must be sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

4. Because of the unusual nature of the facts and circumstances presented, a remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of this opinion is required to reevaluate whether appellant is highly likely to engage in acts of harmful sexual conduct and whether a less restrictive alternative for treatment is available.

Child rapist defeats 11-year attempt to commit him

11 Years as a detainee then beat the commitment game; his story needed to be told.

6-22-2014 Washington:

Tacoma — For 11 years, Cory E. Roberts was housed at the state's center for sexually violent predators and for 11 years he stalled efforts to have him committed there.

Last month, he won the argument and on Monday was released into Tacoma after two experts decided he did not meet the criteria for being committed at the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island.

"What stunned me about this particular defendant's release was not only his horrific history, but his unwillingness to pursue treatment while at McNeil Island," Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said.

The 37-year-old's convictions include sexually and physically assaulting a 3-year-old girl in 1990 when he was 13 and living in Benton County. Roberts had responded to a baby-sitting ad and was supposed to be caring for the toddler.

The child suffered permanent brain damage and paralysis as well as blindness in one eye and loss of sight in the other, her mother, Kelly McGinnis, told KIRO-TV.

"He's a monster," McGinnis said.

Her daughter regularly asks if Roberts is in jail, said McGinnis, who told KIRO she'll keep telling her he is. The brain injury from the attack left her daughter with the mental ability of a 10-year-old, and learning about the release would be too much for her, McGinnis said.

Roberts is registered as a level three sex offender, those considered most likely to re-offend. He told authorities he is living in the 7200 block of South Fawcett Street in Tacoma.

8-7-2014 Florida:

An appeals court has ordered the release of a Jacksonville sex offender who was committed under the state’s Jimmy Ryce Act after he had completed his prison sentence.

Prosecutors said the case was not over and stressed that Victor V. Reed was unlikely to get out anytime soon.

The case will go to the Florida Supreme Court for a final ruling, but prosecutors said the “loophole” that might let Reed get out has already been closed as part of a modification of the Jimmy Ryce Act that occurred earlier this year.

The act allows for the psychiatric review or civil commitment of sexually violent offenders even after they finish their prison sentences.

Reed, 48, pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual battery in May 2013. Circuit Judge Virginia Norton sentenced him to the 481 days he had already served in jail.

Usually that would mean Reed was free, but he remained in custody overnight to be “processed out.” The next day the Department of Corrections notified the Department of Children and Families that Reed was a potential Jimmy Ryce inmate. Children and Families responded with a “detainer” letter asking for Reed to be transported to the Florida Civil Commitment Center, which is where sexual offenders and predators are held under the Jimmy Ryce Act.

Oddball post, read last few paragraphs.

10-7-2014 Missouri:

The Missouri attorney general’s office has agreed to take a limited break from civil trials that seek to indefinitely commit sexually violent predators to secure treatment facilities run by the Missouri Department of Mental Health.

Sexually violent predators are held at Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services, or SORTS, in Farmington and Fulton after completing lengthy prison sentences. Law enforcement officials try to commit about 20 men each year to the controversial program through civil commitment trials.

According to a stipulation filed Thursday in federal court, the attorney general’s office agreed not to set civil commitment cases for trial between Dec. 1 and May 1. The decision clears the deck for a large federal lawsuit against Missouri that alleges SORTS is unconstitutional. An April 21 trial date was recently set for the federal case, an attorney said.

“There is a fundamental constitutional issue that has to be resolved, and until that is resolved the process should be stopped,” said Eric Selig, lead attorney representing about 200 sex offenders who are plaintiffs in the class-action suit. “The AG’s office was pretty reasonable to agree with us to put everything on hold.”

The break is expected to affect seven civil commitment trials. Six separate cases set for trial before Dec. 1 will go forward.

As part of the agreement, plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit withdrew a motion for preliminary injunction that asked the judge in the case to stop the civil commitment process, including filing new petitions for commitment.

Eric Slusher, a spokesman for the Missouri attorney general’s office, said officials agreed to allow continuances in the seven civil commitment cases leading up to the federal lawsuit trial in April “in the interest of saving resources and disposing of the motion for preliminary injunction.”

The civil commitment process was the topic of an in-depth story in the Post-Dispatch that outlined the case of Lester Bradley, a sex offender who has refused treatment at SORTS. He was committed despite a unanimous decision by a panel of state mental health officials that he wasn’t more likely than not to commit another sex offense if not held in a secure facility. He won his appeal in June and is expected to be transferred home to Kansas City soon for a new trial that hasn’t been set.

Macon Baker, a sex offender from Des Peres, was a rare sex offender to win his civil commitment trial in February. The attorney general’s office had failed to get a unanimous verdict to commit him at three previous trials. ..Source.. by Jessee Bogan

Split Court Clarifies Role of ASPD in Civil Confinement

10-31-2014 New York:

ALBANY - A diagnosis that a person suffers from antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), without any other condition linked to sexual violence, is insufficient to support the finding of mental abnormality needed for civil commitment to a mental heath facility, the state Court of Appeals held.

The ruling clarified what it said was an open question on whether the condition is itself a signal of an offender's propensity to commit sex crimes or an indicator of more general antisocial behavior without links to criminal sexual behavior.

Under Mental Hygiene Law Article 10, a finding of a mental abnormality must be made by a court before it can impose restrictions on offenders upon their release from prison that range from mandatory outpatient treatment to confinement in secure mental health facilities.

Antisocial personality disorder is defined as a condition or disorder that affects the emotional or cognitive capacity of a person in a way that predisposes him or her to commit a sex offense and "results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct."

This is upsetting the man waited between 4-5 years before the commitment hearing was even held; time lost from his life. What part of that time was he still serving his prison sentence we do not know.

3-18-15 Washington:

YAKIMA, Wash. — A jury has declined to indefinitely commit a convicted sex offender who had served his term.

In a two-week trial, state officials argued that David Ramirez, 45, is a sexually violent predator who will act on his urges if he is allowed to leave state custody.

But after deliberating Tuesday evening and much of the day today, a Yakima County Superior Court jury said Ramirez should not be subject to a civil commitment.

The jury’s verdict was announced shortly after 3 p.m. Two members of Ramirez’s family were in the courtroom to hear the verdict.

“I was extremely happy for my client and his family,” Ramirez attorney Bruce Shamulka said. “If we can get David on the straight and narrow, the whole family can finally come together. It’s been a long, hard road for them.”

3-13-15 Iowa:

In re Detention Calvin Matlock

A person committed under the Sexually Violent Predator Act alleges his release with supervision violates the Due Process Clauses of the Iowa and the United States Constitutions.

We find the statutory scheme contained in Iowa Code sections 229A.8 and 229A.9A does not violate the Due Process Clauses of the Iowa and the United States Constitutions as long as: the person continues to suffer from a mental abnormality, the testimony supports the need for supervision, and the supervision strikes the right balance between the need to protect the community and the person's liberty interest.

Applying these principles to this appeal, we find the committed person still suffers from a mental abnormality and the testimony supports his release with supervision. Thus, we affirm that part of the district court's judgment.

We are not satisfied the State met its burden to prove the release conditions adopted by the district court balance the need to protect the community and the person's liberty interest.

Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court to review the release conditions and enter the appropriate order consistent with due process.

DA: Roslindale child predator civilly committed after jury finds him sexually dangerous

Note: Commitment is based on a "legislative definition" not a "psychiatric definition," which means the legislature could confine anyone they disfavor by passing such a law..

1-19-2015 Massachusetts:

A sex offender from Roslindale previously convicted of manslaughter faces potential lifetime commitment at a secure facility after a jury on Jan. 16 found him to be sexually dangerous, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.

After a three-day trial and about an hour of deliberations, a Suffolk Superior Court jury found Manuel Encarnacion, 43, of Roslindale, a sexually dangerous person under Ch. 123A of the Massachusetts General Laws, the DA said.

Judge Raffi Yessayan civilly committed Encarnacion to the Massachusetts Treatment Center in Bridgewater for a period of one day to life. The commitment comes at the conclusion of Encarnacion’s state prison sentence for a conviction in Suffolk Superior Court for indecent assault of a child under 14 and assault and battery.

Under the sexually dangerous person statute, prosecutors may seek post-incarceration civil commitment for any person serving a sentence for certain sex offenses if a qualified examiner finds the defendant to be sexually dangerous. Though they are civil proceedings, prosecutors’ burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, just as in criminal cases. If found to be sexually dangerous, the defendant is committed to a secure facility for a period of one day to life but may petition for release once a year.

At trial, Assistant District Attorney Nicole Poirier of the DA’s Sexual Assault Unit presented testimony of two experts and other evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Encarnacion is likely to commit future sex offenses if not confined to a secure facility, the DA said. His SDP commitment means that he will be released from prison directly to the Massachusetts Treatment Center.

Encarnacion was previously convicted of indecently assaulting a young girl who was known to him. The victim’s family had opened their home to the defendant and allowed him to sleep on a couch the night prior to the April 18, 2009, assault. That morning, Encarnacion entered the room where the victim was playing video games and caring for an infant relative and violently knocked her to the floor, covered her mouth with his hand, and sexually assaulted her.

Encarnacion was later arrested and ultimately convicted of indecent assault and battery of a child under 14 and assault and battery but acquitted of assault with intent to rape; he was sentenced to four to five years in prison followed by probation until May 2019. During his time in prison, the evidence showed, he has refused to take part in sex offender therapy since January 2013. While incarcerated he has also been disciplined for various offenses, most notably orchestrating an assault on a fellow inmate in which 60 inmates took part. A corrections officer was also injured in the incident.

Jurors also heard evidence that Encarnacion previously served a decade in prison for a conviction of manslaughter committed in Worcester County in 1986 when Encarnacion was age 14.

Two qualified examiners testified that Encarnacion presented with a personality disorder as defined by Ch. 123A, Sect. 1, of the Massachusetts General Laws and is likely to reoffend sexually if not confined to strict security.

Encarnacion was represented by Victoria Kelleher. ..Source.. by Staff reports