RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5233-16T5

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL

COMMITMENT OF R.E.B., SVP-367-04.

_________________________________

Argued March 22, 2018 – Decided July 5, 2018

Before Judges Haas and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. SVP364-04.

Joan D. Van Pelt, Designated Counsel, argued 

the cause for appellant R.E.B. (Joseph E. 

Krakora, Public Defender, attorney).

Stephen J. Slocum, Assistant Attorney General, 

argued the cause for respondent State of New 

Jersey (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, 

attorney).

PER CURIAM

R.E.B. appeals from the June 7, 2017 order of the Law Division 

continuing his commitment to the Special Treatment Unit (STU), the 

secure facility designated for the custody, care, and treatment 

of sexually violent predators, pursuant to the Sexually Violent 

Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-5233-16T5

We need not recount R.E.B.'s prior criminal history or the 

events that followed his original admission to the STU in 2004. 

They are recounted at length in our prior opinions, In re Civil 

Commitment of R.Z.B.,

1 392 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 2007), In re 

Civil Commitment of R.E.B., No. A-3270-12 (App. Div. Nov. 25, 

2013), and In re Civil Commitment of R.E.B., No. A-1613-11 (App. 

Div. May 20, 2014). Suffice it to say that R.E.B., born in October

1948, has an extensive criminal history in both state and federal 

courts, including three separate instances of sexual offenses

against minors dating back to the early 1980s and spanning twelve 

years. His convictions include sexual assault as well as the

production, possession, and sale of child pornography. His last 

conviction occurred in 1995, and in 2005, he was committed to the 

STU under the SVPA on parole violations following his release from 

federal custody. 

At the civil commitment review hearing before Judge James F. 

Mulvihill on May 18 and May 31, 2017, the State presented expert 

testimony from psychiatrist Michal Kunz, M.D., and psychologist

Debra L. Roquet, Psy. D. R.E.B. presented the expert testimony 

of psychologist Gianni Pirelli, Ph. D. The experts' reports, 

 

1 R.E.B. is referenced as "R.Z.B." in the 2007 appeal.
3 A-5233-16T5

various treatment notes, and other records were also admitted into 

evidence.

After interviewing R.E.B. on May 4, 2017, and reviewing his 

previous psychiatric evaluations, STU treatment records, prison 

and police records, Dr. Kunz concluded that R.E.B. met the criteria 

of a sexually violent predator and was highly likely to engage in 

acts of sexual violence in the foreseeable future. Based on 

R.E.B.'s sexual arousal from pre-, peri-, and post-pubescent males 

between the ages of nine and eighteen, Dr. Kunz diagnosed R.E.B. 

with "pedophilic disorder, sexually attracted to male[s], nonexclusive"; "other specified paraphilic disorder with a focus on 

teenagers, . . . sometimes referred to as hebephilia"; and 

"other . . . specified personality disorder with antisocial and 

narcissistic traits." According to Dr. Kunz, these disorders do 

not spontaneously remit and affect R.E.B. "predominantly in 

the . . . cognitive sphere of his ability to . . . recognize his 

feelings," making him predisposed to sexually reoffend. Dr. Kunz 

acknowledged that treatment could control the impulses these 

disorders cause, but, in his opinion, R.E.B. had not had enough 

treatment to adequately control his impulses if released at this

time. 

Dr. Kunz noted that R.E.B.'s "sexual offending history"

showed an "escalation," beginning "with two boys whom he just 
4 A-5233-16T5

encountered in the street," progressing to "him actually 

bringing . . . victims into his home," and ultimately evolving 

into "this elaborate well-organized effort to lure a number of 

boys into the residence by a variety of activities . . . that 

[were] likely to entice boys." Dr. Kunz observed that R.E.B.'s 

offense history showed "a really strong sexually deviant 

attraction to boys" that he maintained and acted on "despite 

punishment." Dr. Kunz also noted that R.E.B.'s "deceitful" and 

"sophisticated" manner of grooming and gaining access to the 

victims was "consistent[] with his personality structure." 

Although R.E.B.'s most recent PCL-R

2 score was 24.2, which 

was at the high end of the moderate range for psychopathic

deviance, given his prior higher scores, Dr. Kunz was still of the 

opinion that R.E.B.'s history of antisocial behaviors corresponded 

with his antisocial personality characteristics and was indicative 

of psychopathic traits. Dr. Kunz noted that R.E.B. passed his 

most recent Deviant Arousal Polygraph Examination, and that

 

2 According to Dr. Kunz, the PCL-R, or psychopathy checklist 

revised, provides a dimensional score that represents the extent 

to which an individual is judged to match the prototypical 

psychopath. Higher scores indicate a closer match and, presumably,

a greater confidence that the individual is a psychopath. An 

individual who receives a score of thirty or above meets the 

diagnostic criteria for psychopathy. Previously, R.E.B. had 

scores of 29.5 and 30.5. 
5 A-5233-16T5

despite reporting being aroused by teen and adult males, he showed 

no arousal to any deviant or non-deviant stimuli during a 2016 

penile plethysmograph (PPG).

3 However, Dr. Kunz pointed out that 

the test results were not valid because R.E.B. described the 

"setup" as "creepy," resulting in the suppression of "whatever 

sexual arousal there may have been."

As to his intellectual and educational background, R.E.B.'s 

IQ score was in the superior range, and Dr. Kunz confirmed that 

R.E.B. had a Bachelor's degree in Psychology from New York 

University. As to substance abuse history, R.E.B. had "some 

history of marijuana abuse," but Dr. Kunz did not "find a 

persistent pattern" to make "it particularly significant." 

Dr. Kunz gave R.E.B. a Static-99R4 score of three, indicating 

an average risk for re-offense. However, in classifying R.E.B.'s 

 

3 According to Dr. Kunz, a PPG is a test to determine a person's 

arousal whereby "a device is placed on a person's penis," and then 

the person is "exposed to . . . sexually arousing stimuli," and 

"the device measures the arousal by . . . measuring the changes

in the . . . circumference of the penis."

4 "The Static-99 is an actuarial test used to estimate the 

probability of sexually violent recidivism in adult males 

previously convicted of sexually violent offenses." In re Civil 

Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 164 n.9 (2014) (citing Andrew 

Harris et al., Static-99 Coding Rules Revised-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.'" Ibid. (quoting In re Commitment of R.S., 173 N.J. 134, 

137 (2002)).
6 A-5233-16T5

risk to sexually reoffend in the foreseeable future as "high," Dr. 

Kunz considered other dynamic risk factors such as R.E.B.'s: 

"[s]exual preference for children"; "psychopathy"; "lack of 

concern for others"; "intimacy deficits"; "emotional 

identification with children"; reliance on sex as a coping 

mechanism; "attitudes tolerant of sexual assault"; "dropping out 

of [past] sexual offender treatment"; "violation of [parole]"; and 

"cooperation with supervision." 

Dr. Kunz "consider[ed] mitigating factors in three areas, 

namely age, disabling medical conditions and treatment." However, 

inasmuch as R.E.B.'s offenses did not involve physical force, Dr. 

Kunz did not believe that R.E.B.'s current age of sixty-eight 

would "impede . . . his ability to access[,] . . . groom[,] or 

manipulate his victims." In addition, Dr. Kunz found R.E.B. was 

"fit and healthy in spite of the fact that he suffered a heart 

attack" in 2011, which resulted in the placement of several stents. 

Further, Dr. Kunz noted that while R.E.B. "has made progress in 

treatment[,] . . . he still need[ed] to work more in treatment to 

fully mitigate his risk." 

Dr. Kunz recounted R.E.B.'s treatment prior to coming to the 

STU as well as his treatment progress at the STU. Prior to 

arriving at the STU, R.E.B. received sex offender treatment on 

three different occasions. Despite receiving treatment, he
7 A-5233-16T5

continued to "pursue[] his deviant sexual interests," which Dr. 

Kunz interpreted as a sign of "the strength of his sexual arousal 

as well as the sort of resistance to interventions that could help 

him reduce his risk to reoffend." Although R.E.B. had entered the 

second half of the more advanced part of the core phase of 

treatment at the STU and despite his intelligence and education 

level, Dr. Kunz opined that R.E.B.'s treatment progress had been 

hampered by "his personality traits" that "continue 

to . . . create risk[s] for him" and "interfere with his treatment 

and his ability to engage in treatment." As a result, the 

treatment has not had "the desired effect." 

Specifically, Dr. Kunz explained that repeated themes in the 

treatment team reports showed that R.E.B. did not demonstrate a 

full command over his sexual assault cycle, had "interpersonal 

problems" with other residents, and became "defensive" when "given 

feedback by his peers or by his treaters." Dr. Kunz found this 

significant because R.E.B. would have to rely on his peers and 

treaters once discharged and would therefore have to find a way 

"to interact" without this "ongoing" antagonism. As to R.E.B.'s 

understanding of his sexual assault cycle, Dr. Kunz explained 

that, for a long time, R.E.B. would not "acknowledge" his "arousal 

to underage individuals" and had "interpret[ed] his arousal to 

teenagers as essentially stemming from his . . . internal conflict 
8 A-5233-16T5

over his homosexuality." Dr. Kunz again attributed R.E.B.'s 

resistance to "his personality traits," and to his "rigidity" or 

"difficulty" recognizing his feelings. 

Dr. Roquet, a member of the STU's Treatment Progress Review 

Committee (TPRC), conducted an annual review of R.E.B.'s progress 

in treatment by interviewing R.E.B. and reviewing the prior 

treatment notes and reports. Dr. Roquet agreed with Dr. Kunz's

diagnosis and concluded that R.E.B. suffered from a mental 

abnormality or personality disorder that predisposed him to 

sexually reoffending. She characterized R.E.B. as "highly likely 

to sexually reoffend" in the foreseeable future "without a high 

level of external controls." Dr. Roquet opined that R.E.B. 

required continued "confinement to the STU in order to mitigate 

that risk." 

Referring to R.E.B.'s PCL-R and Static99-R scores to which 

Dr. Kunz had previously testified,5 Dr. Roquet elaborated that 

"the primary concern" was R.E.B.'s "sexual pathology," which was 

 

5 Dr. Roquet also administered the Stable-2007, a risk assessment 

instrument "developed to assess change in intermediate term risk 

status, [and] assessment needs, and [to] help predict recidivism 

in sexual offenders." R.E.B.'s Stable-2007 score was "[twelve] 

out of a possible [twenty-six] points," which was a "high" score 

for the presence of dynamic factors associated with recidivism. 

Together, the Stable-2007 and the Static-99R "provide [a] 

composite assessment of [R.E.B.'s] risk/needs," and "place[d] him 

in the [m]oderate-[h]igh category for supervision and 

intervention." 
9 A-5233-16T5

"likely to continue to drive his behavior in the community, 

and . . . would be further enhanced or supported by problematic 

antisocial and psychopathic personality characteristics despite 

his age." Dr. Roquet pointed out that R.E.B.'s sexual 

preoccupation manifested itself in his continued reporting of

"ongoing pop-ups" and in his "strong arousal to young boys." Dr. 

Roquet reconciled R.E.B.'s continuous sexual thoughts about minors 

with passing the polygraph by explaining that the polygraph "has 

to do with behavior, . . . specifically with masturbation," so 

while R.E.B. "[may] not be engaging in the behavior," which was 

"positive," it did not "mean that the thoughts [were] . . . not 

present." 

According to Dr. Roquet, while some of the "characteristics 

associated with psychopathy and antisocial personality 

disorder . . . start to diminish after age [forty]," there were 

other characteristics still present in R.E.B. that would continue 

to influence him. Dr. Roquet also testified that, although 

R.E.B.'s last offense occurred in 1993 when he was forty-five

years old, the "length of time since the last offense" did "not 

have much of an impact . . . on the risk assessment" because "he 

[had] been confined for most of that time." 

While other treatment team members believed R.E.B. was 

"making some progress in addressing some of the dynamic risk 
10 A-5233-16T5

factors," Dr. Roquet was of the opinion that, as long as R.E.B. 

continued to resist "dealing head-on with the pedophilic arousal," 

he would not be able to "integrate" and "use the kind of arousal 

management strategies and relapse prevention 

strategies . . . necessary for him to be safe in the 

community . . . and . . . not reoffend." Dr. Roquet was troubled 

by treatment team reports that R.E.B. "distance[d] himself from 

his deviant arousal," "present[ed] himself as more sexually benign 

than his history indicate[d]," and "romanticize[d] his 

relationship with underage males" by "refer[ing] to his victims 

as friends" and "confounding sexual exploitation with helping." 

Pointing to specific discrepancies between the official record and 

R.E.B.'s account of his sexual offending history, Dr. Roquet 

emphasized that R.E.B. needed "to shed light on his offense-related 

arousal with no minimization of past or present arousal" in order 

to make "substantial . . . progress in this problem area."

Dr. Pirelli conducted a forensic psychological evaluation of 

R.E.B. at his attorney's request, which included two interviews 

with R.E.B. Although Dr. Pirelli agreed with the diagnosis of the 

State's experts and acknowledged that R.E.B.'s symptoms were "not 

curable," he opined that the conditions did not impair R.E.B.'s 

volitional capacity because "he [did] have control over his 

behavior." Thus, Dr. Pirelli assessed R.E.B.'s risk of re-offense
11 A-5233-16T5

if released into the community as "less than highly likely" and 

recommended a "structured . . . discharge and treatment plan" with 

"external monitoring." While acknowledging that R.E.B. "has a 

number of risk factors," Dr. Pirelli believed R.E.B. was "highly 

likely to comply with the plan," was "much more equipped than his 

peers," and, in many ways, had the "ability to actually be 

successful in the community." 

To support his opinion, Dr. Pirelli administered the Risk for 

Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP), "a structured professional 

judgment" measure, which includes twenty-two "empirically 

supported sexual violence risk factors across five domains": 

sexual violence history, psychological adjustment, mental 

disorder, social adjustment, and manageability. Dr. Pirelli 

disagreed that R.E.B. was resistant to treatment and believed he 

had made "significant treatment gains over the years" and would 

not "benefit from being [at the STU] any longer." Dr. Pirelli 

explained that the STU provided a "cognitive behavioral treatment" 

program to effect behavioral change, rather than "personality 

change." Thus, in Dr. Pirelli's opinion, R.E.B.'s personality 

characteristics limited his amenability to further progress in 

treatment there. Dr. Pirelli believed R.E.B. had achieved 

behavioral change, and "the things that [were] getting him hung

up at this point" were not directly related to sexual violence 
12 A-5233-16T5

risk. For example, Dr. Pirelli attributed R.E.B.'s interpersonal 

conflicts to his superior intelligence and frustrations from 

interacting with less intelligent peers and staff. 

In an oral opinion rendered on June 7, 2017, Judge Mulvihill 

found by "clear and convincing evidence" that R.E.B. was "convicted 

of very serious sexually violent offenses"; suffers from 

"pedophilia and other specified personality disorder, [and]

paraphilia in terms of . . . hebephilia," which "affect him 

emotionally, cognitively, [and] volitionally"; has "serious 

difficulty controlling his sexually violent behavior"; and was 

"[h]ighly likely at this time to sexually reoffend" if released. 

The judge found the State's experts "very credible" and made 

findings consistent with their testimony and reports. Although 

he also found Dr. Pirelli's testimony credible, he credited the

contrary opinion of the State's experts regarding R.E.B.'s current 

risk to reoffend. 

Judge Mulvihill recounted R.E.B.'s extensive criminal history 

and acknowledged that the offenses occurred over twenty-four years 

earlier, but found "[s]ignificance in [the] number of victims, the 

age range, the persistence of offending, [and] the variety of 

sexual activities." Additionally, the judge detailed R.E.B.'s 

extensive treatment history and acknowledged that he had received 

a "significant amount of treatment," had "completed all treatment 
13 A-5233-16T5

modules," and "made a lot of progress," but this did "not mitigate 

his risk completely" or lower it to "less than highly likely." 

The judge explained that despite being active in treatment, having 

superior intelligence, and understanding the concepts, R.E.B. 

"still struggle[d] with his deviant arousal" and "[did] not have 

full command of his sexual assault cycle." The judge stated that 

R.E.B. had to work on ensuring that he understood that it was "not 

okay in any way, shape or form to act upon his deviancy towards 

underage boys." Judge Mulvihill entered a memorializing order 

continuing R.E.B.'s commitment, and this appeal followed.

On appeal,6 R.E.B. argues Judge Mulvihill misapplied the 

applicable principles in concluding that he continued to pose a 

risk and was highly likely to reoffend sexually if released. In 

support, R.E.B. points to his advanced age and medical condition, 

and to the length of time he has spent at the STU with good 

institutional behavior. He claims the judge ignored the lack of

recent evidence of sexual deviancy and only relied on evidence 

from his dated convictions. We reject these arguments and affirm.

"The scope of appellate review of a commitment determination 

is extremely narrow." R.F., 217 N.J. at 174 (quoting In re D.C., 

 

6 By agreement of the parties and with the permission of the 

court, the appeal was argued without briefs. We summarize the 

points raised by appellant based upon the presentation at oral 

argument.
14 A-5233-16T5

146 N.J. 31, 58 (1996)). "The 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)).

"The SVPA authorizes the involuntary commitment of an 

individual believed to be a 'sexually violent predator' as defined 

by the Act." In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 127 (2002) 

(citing N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.28). "The definition of 'sexually 

violent predator' requires proof of past sexually violent behavior 

through its precondition of a 'sexually violent offense.'" Ibid. 

It also requires that the person "suffer[] 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." Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 

30:4-27.26). 

"[T]he mental condition must affect an individual's ability 

to control his or her sexually harmful conduct." Ibid. "Inherent 

in some diagnoses will be sexual compulsivity (i.e., 

paraphilia)[,] [b]ut, the diagnosis of each sexually violent 

predator susceptible to civil commitment need not include a 

diagnosis of 'sexual compulsion.'" Id. at 129.

The same standard that supports the initial involuntary

commitment of a sex offender under the Act applies to the annual
15 A-5233-16T5

review hearing. In re Civil Commitment of E.D., 183 N.J. 536, 551 

(2005). In either case, "the State must prove by clear and 

convincing evidence that the individual has serious difficulty 

controlling his or her harmful sexual behavior such that it is 

highly likely that the person will not control his or her sexually 

violent behavior and will reoffend." Ibid. (quoting W.Z., 173 

N.J. at 133-34).

As the fact finder, a "trial judge is 'not required to accept 

all or any part of [an] expert opinion[].'" R.F., 217 N.J. at 174 

(alterations in original) (quoting D.C., 146 N.J. at 61). 

Furthermore, "an appellate court should not modify a trial court's 

determination either to commit or release an individual unless 

'the record reveals a clear mistake.'" Id. at 175 (quoting D.C., 

146 N.J. at 58). 

We find no clear mistake on this record. We are satisfied 

that the record amply supports Judge Mulvihill's finding that 

R.E.B. suffers from pedophilia, other specified paraphilic 

disorder, and other specified personality disorder, a necessary 

predicate for continued commitment under the SVPA. See, e.g., In 

re Civil Commitment of D.Y., 218 N.J. 359, 381 (2014). Based on 

credible expert testimony, the judge determined that R.E.B.'s 

disorders, past behavior and treatment progress demonstrated that 

he was highly likely to engage in acts of sexual violence unless 
16 A-5233-16T5

confined. The judge's determination, to which we owe the "utmost 

deference" and may modify only where there is a clear abuse of 

discretion, In re Commitment of J.P., 339 N.J. Super. 443, 459 

(App. Div. 2001) (quoting State v. Fields, 77 N.J. 282,311 (1978)), 

was proper.

Affirmed.