RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2287-16T5

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

CIVIL COMMITMENT OF

G.B., SVP-760-16.

________________________

Submitted August 21, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Sumners and Gilson.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. SVP-760-16.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant G.B. (Nancy C. Hayes, Designated Counsel, 

on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent State of New Jersey (Melissa H. Raksa, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Arundhati 

Mohankumar, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

G.B., thirty-five years old, appeals from a judgment that committed him 

to the Special Treatment Unit (STU), a secure facility for the treatment of 

persons in need of involuntary civil commitment pursuant to the Sexually 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

September 12, 2018
2

A-2287-16T5

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

State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a sexually 

violent predator, who is highly likely to re-offend in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. Considering this contention in light of the record and applicable 

standards, we affirm.

An involuntary commitment can follow service of a sentence, or other 

criminal disposition, when the offender "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; see also N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.25. To civilly commit an 

individual, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence:

(1) that the individual has been convicted of a sexually 

violent offense; (2) that he suffers from a mental 

abnormality or personality disorder; and (3) that as a 

result of his psychiatric abnormality or disorder, it is 

highly likely that the individual will not control his or 

her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend[.]

[In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 173 

(2014) (citations omitted).]

The first two elements derive directly from the statute. In order to 

"comport with substantive due process concerns, [the] Court interpreted the 

third statutory element as requiring the State to show that a person is 'highly 
3

A-2287-16T5

likely,' not just 'likely,' to sexually reoffend." Ibid. (quoting In re Commitment 

of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 130 (2002)). To be considered a sexually violent 

predator, an individual must have committed a sexually violent offense. 

N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26. Sexual assault is considered a sexually violent offense. 

Ibid. 

With this legal framework in mind, we will now consider the facts that led 

to G.B.'s commitment under the SVPA. In February 2001, when G.B. was 

thirteen years old, he was sentenced to the STU for abusing five different child 

victims, four females and one male, ages three to six, whom he sexually touched, 

including placing his penis between their legs. G.B. was conditionally 

discharged in September 2004, and his case was terminated in December 2006. 

In 2011 and 2012, G.B. reoffended while he was working as a home health 

aide for the victim's grandfather. He admitted to fondling the vagina of the 

fifteen-year-old girl, and asking her to touch his penis. The victim, who suffered 

from muscular dystrophy, had the body of a child and mental capacity of a 

fourth-grader. He pled guilty to third-degree endangering the welfare of a child 

and was sentenced to a three-year term at the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center 

(ADTC).
4

A-2287-16T5

In 2016, G.B. was scheduled to complete his ADTC sentence when the 

State petitioned to involuntarily commit him to the STU. Judge James F. 

Mulvihill conducted a one-day commitment hearing at which a psychiatric 

expert, Alberto Goldwaser, M.D., and a psychological expert, Christine E. 

Zavalis, Psy.D., testified for the State, concerning their evaluations of G.B., and 

their review of his criminal history and other past evaluation assessments. G.B. 

neither testified nor presented any witnesses. 

According to Goldwaser, G.B. was sexually abused between the ages of 

five and twelve by an uncle, and in addition to the noted sex offense history, he 

had a juvenile history of non-sexual offenses. Goldwaser stated that G.B. failed 

to take his STU treatment seriously when he was committed as a juvenile. His 

diagnosis was that G.B. suffers from a mental abnormality, pedophile disorder, 

female/male, non-exclusive; antisocial personality disorder; and cannabis use 

disorder, severe-in controlled environment. The doctor's evaluation determined 

that G.B. scored a five on the STATIC-99R1actuarial instrument, indicating a 

 

1

 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 Revised2003 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 
5

A-2287-16T5

moderate to high risk of recidivism. He thus opined that G.B. was highly likely 

to reoffend regarding his sexual addiction to adolescents. 

For the most part, Zavalis' evaluation and testimony echoed Goldwaser's. 

Her diagnosis was that G.B. suffers from pedophilic disorder, sexually attracted 

to females, nonexclusive type; other specified personality disorder, with 

antisocial traits;2and cannabis use disorder. She determined that G.B. scored a 

six on the STATIC-99R, indicating a high risk of recidivism. She also opined 

that G.B. was highly likely to commit sexual offenses against adolescents in the 

future. 

Although Judge Mulvihill found the testimony of both experts to be 

credible, he did not accept Goldwaser's diagnosis that G.B. had an antisocial 

personality disorder. Instead, he agreed with Zavalis' diagnosis of other 

specified personality disorder, with antisocial traits. The judge found there was 

clear and convincing evidence that G.B. was convicted of a sexually violent 

offense, and based on the diagnoses rendered by Goldwaser and Zavalis, G.B. 

has a sexually violent behavior that affects him emotionally, cognitively, and 

 

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)).

2

 She did not conclude that G.B. had an antisocial personality disorder.
6

A-2287-16T5

volitionally, which makes him highly likely to reoffend if not committed to the 

STU. 

In considering this appeal, our "review of a commitment determination is 

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

omitted). "The final decision whether a person previously convicted of a 

sexually violent offense is highly likely to sexually reoffend lies with the courts, 

not the expertise of psychiatrists and psychologists. Courts must balance 

society's interest in protection from harmful conduct against the individual's 

interest in personal liberty and autonomy." Ibid. (citations omitted). "A trial 

judge is 'not required to accept all or any part of [an] expert opinion[].' The 

ultimate determination is 'a legal one, not a medical one, even though it is guided 

by medical expert testimony.'" Ibid. (alterations in original) (quoting D.C., 146 

N.J. at 59, 61). Therefore, we should not modify the judge's determination 

"unless 'the record reveals a clear mistake.'" Id. at 175 (quoting D.C., 146 N.J. 

at 58). "So long as the trial [judge's] findings are supported by 'sufficient 

credible evidence present in the record,' those findings should not be disturbed." 

Ibid. (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)).
7

A-2287-16T5

Governed by these standards, we discern no basis to disturb Judge 

Mulvihill's decision. The credible record – documentary evidence and the 

testimony of Goldwaser and Zavalis – amply support a finding that G.B. is a 

sexually violent predator suffering from pedophilic disorder and personality 

disorder, with antisocial traits, and that he is highly likely to engage in acts of 

sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for control, care and treatment 

under the SVPA. 

Affirmed.