Title: Lotz v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 081122
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: February 27, 2009

PRESENT:  All the Justices 
 
GUY MATTHEW LOTZ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      OPINION BY 
v. 
Record No.  081122  
   JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN 
 
 
 
   FEBRUARY 27, 2009 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY 
Thomas H. Wood, Judge 
 
 
This appeal arises from a hearing, held pursuant to Code 
§ 37.2-910, concerning continuation of secure inpatient 
treatment for an individual previously found to be a sexually 
violent predator (“SVP”) in proceedings under the Civil 
Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act, Code §§ 37.2-900 
through -920.  After the hearing, the Circuit Court of Augusta 
County determined that Guy Matthew Lotz (“Lotz”) continued to be 
a SVP and ordered that he remain in secure inpatient treatment.  
The circuit court also determined that Lotz’s mental health 
evaluations, admitted into evidence at the hearing, should not 
be sealed.  Lotz challenges the circuit court’s failure to grant 
him a conditional release and the court’s decision to unseal his 
mental health evaluations. 
After being declared a SVP, Lotz was committed to the 
custody of the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation 
and Substance Abuse Services for secure inpatient treatment.  
Code § 37.2-910(A) requires an annual review of continuation of 
secure inpatient treatment of SVPs for five years and at 
biennial intervals thereafter.  It also requires that the 
Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, Mental 
Retardation and Substance Abuse Services (“the Commissioner”), 
provide to the court a report reevaluating the SVP’s condition 
and recommending treatment prior to each hearing.  Code § 37.2-
910(B); Code § 37.2-100.  Before his first annual review 
hearing, Lotz moved to seal from public disclosure the report, 
required by Code § 37.2-910(B), reevaluating Lotz’s condition 
and recommending treatment.  The circuit court granted the 
motion and entered an order sealing Lotz’s required SVP mental 
health evaluations (“the report”).  Subsequently, the report was 
made an exhibit and admitted into evidence at the review 
hearing. 
At the hearing, Dr. Mario Dennis, the clinical director at 
the facility where Lotz was institutionalized, testified as an 
expert witness for the Commonwealth.  Dr. Dennis testified that 
Lotz was beginning to make some progress identifying his 
“triggers,” but recommended further inpatient hospitalization.  
Dr. Dennis also testified that Lotz continued to have deviant 
thoughts of children and that Lotz admitted to continued 
masturbation while fantasizing about them. 
The evaluations of Lotz reflected his need for improvement 
in the categories of “physical and hurtful aggression.”  During 
treatment, he had confrontations with other residents, which 
 
2
included kicking a door, shouting, and cursing.  Lotz was also 
suspected of making some type of alcohol and trying to engage 
another resident in sexual activity.  Dr. Dennis opined that 
such outbursts showed a lack of maturity and stability.  The 
Commonwealth also presented evidence that Lotz had been 
disruptive during treatment on several occasions. 
Additionally, Dr. Dennis expressed concern with the 
premature release of Lotz, considering his age, 23, the 
adolescent age at which his deviant sexual interest emerged, and 
the number of sexual interactions he has had with children.  Dr. 
Dennis opined that if released, there is a high risk that Lotz 
would re-offend in a sexually violent manner, and, therefore, 
his release would pose an undue risk to public safety. 
Lotz presented Dr. Glenn R. Miller, Jr. as an expert 
witness.  Dr. Miller testified that Lotz had been actively 
engaged in treatment and compliant with its requirements.  Dr. 
Miller opined that based on Lotz’s low psychopathy scores, there 
is a low risk that he would engage in any violent offense.  Dr. 
Miller also opined that Lotz was a candidate for conditional 
release and that he would not be an undue risk to the public. 
After the hearing, the circuit court ruled that the 
Commonwealth proved by clear and convincing evidence that Lotz 
remained a SVP.  The circuit court also concluded that there was 
no less restrictive alternative to institutional confinement due 
 
3
to Lotz’s early stage of treatment and the high risk that he 
would re-offend if not confined to involuntary inpatient 
treatment.  Additionally, upon motion of the Commonwealth, the 
circuit court vacated the prior order sealing Lotz’s evaluations 
contained in the report and ordered that they be unsealed.  
ANALYSIS 
On appeal, Lotz does not assign error to the circuit 
court’s determination that he remained a SVP.  However, Lotz 
argues that the circuit court erred in denying his conditional 
release as he satisfied the criteria for conditional release 
under Code § 37.2-912(A).  The Commonwealth argues that the 
evidence presented at the hearing proved that Lotz did not 
satisfy such criteria. 
Code § 37.2-910(C) states that in SVP review hearings, the 
Commonwealth has the burden to prove, by clear and convincing 
evidence, that the respondent remains a SVP.  If the court 
concludes that the respondent remains a SVP, the court must 
order that the respondent remain in secure inpatient 
hospitalization or be conditionally released.  Code § 37.2-
910(D).   
In deciding whether the respondent should be conditionally 
released, the court must determine if the respondent meets the 
following criteria 
 
4
(i) he does not need secure inpatient treatment but 
needs outpatient treatment or monitoring to prevent 
his condition from deteriorating to a degree that he 
would need secure inpatient treatment; (ii) 
appropriate outpatient supervision and treatment are 
reasonably available; (iii) there is significant 
reason to believe that the respondent, if 
conditionally released, would comply with the 
conditions specified; and (iv) conditional release 
will not present an undue risk to public safety.  
 
Code § 37.2-912(A). 
 
Because the Commonwealth prevailed at the hearing, this 
Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 
Commonwealth.  Shivaee v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 112, 127, 613 
S.E.2d 570, 578 (2005); see Commonwealth v. Jackson, 276 Va. 
184, 192, 661 S.E.2d 810, 813-14 (2008).  The evidence at the 
hearing proved that Lotz had exhibited aggressive behavior 
during treatment and he continued to have deviant fantasies 
about children.  Also, Dr. Dennis opined that Lotz’s release 
would pose an undue risk to public safety.  Although Dr. Miller 
disagreed with Dr. Dennis’ opinion, Lotz’s evaluations showed 
his aggressive behavior during treatment, and Lotz admitted 
during treatment that he continued to masturbate to images of 
children.   
Upon a finding that Lotz remained a SVP, Lotz’s conditional 
release is permitted only after a judicial determination that he 
satisfies all four criteria stated in Code § 37.2-912(A).  See 
Code § 37.2-912(A).  Viewing the evidence submitted at the 
 
5
hearing in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, there 
was evidence to support the circuit court’s determination that 
Lotz failed to satisfy all the criteria for conditional release 
set forth in the statute.  Thus, we hold that the circuit court 
did not err in deciding not to place Lotz on conditional 
release. 
 
Lotz also argues that the court erred in unsealing the 
report reevaluating Lotz’s condition, which the Commissioner is 
required, by Code § 37.2-910(B), to prepare prior to a SVP 
review hearing. Lotz argues that such evaluations are health 
records, disclosure of which is prohibited under Code § 32.1-
127.1:03.  The Commonwealth argues that the evaluations are not 
health records within the meaning of Code § 37.1-127.1:03 
because they are forensic evaluations required by the SVP 
statute and are not prepared as an incident of providing health 
services. 
Code § 32.1-127.1:03(A) provides that “except when 
permitted or required by this section or by other provisions of 
state law, no health care entity, or other person working in a 
health care setting, may disclose an individual’s health 
records.”  The circuit court order initially sealing Lotz’s 
records pertains specifically to “certain mental health 
evaluations prepared by the Department of Corrections.”  The 
parties agree that the order concerns sealing the report 
 
6
required by Code § 37.2-910(B).  Assuming, without deciding, 
that the SVP evaluations contained in the report are medical 
records, Code § 37.2-910(B) requires that “the Commissioner 
shall provide to the court a report reevaluating the 
respondent’s condition and recommending treatment.”  Thus, 
because disclosure of such records is required by statute, Code 
§ 32.1-127.1:03 does not limit their disclosure.   
There is a rebuttable presumption of public access to 
judicial records in civil proceedings.  Perreault v. The Free 
Lance-Star, 276 Va. 375, 390, 666 S.E.2d 352, 360 (2008);  
Shenandoah Publishing House, Inc. v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 258, 
368 S.E.2d 253, 256 (1988); see Code § 17.1-208.  Exhibits 
entered into evidence in a judicial proceeding that lead to the 
judgment constitute judicial records.  Perreault, 276 Va. at 
387, 666 S.E.2d at 358; Shenandoah Publishing, 235 Va. at 257, 
368 S.E.2d at 255.  In order to overcome the presumption of 
public access, the moving party bears the “burden of 
establishing an interest so compelling that it cannot be 
protected reasonably by some measure other than a protective 
order.”  Perreault, 276 Va. at 389, 666 S.E.2d at 360 (quoting 
Shenandoah Publishing, 235 Va. at 258-59, 368 S.E.2d at 256).  
Further, “risks of damage to professional reputation, emotional 
damage, or financial harm, stated in the abstract,” are not 
sufficient reasons for a court to seal judicial records.  
 
7
Shenandoah Publishing, 235 Va. at 259, 368 S.E.2d at 256; accord 
Perreault, 276 Va. at 392, 666 S.E.2d at 361.  
In this case, the Commonwealth filed the SVP report 
prepared by the Commissioner pursuant to Code § 37.2-910(B) as 
an exhibit, and the report was admitted into evidence at the 
hearing.  Thus, under Perreault and Shenandoah Publishing, the 
evaluations contained in that report fall within the definition 
of judicial records, creating a rebuttable presumption of public 
access.  See Code § 17.1-208.  Because Lotz failed to rebut this 
presumption, the circuit court did not err in unsealing the 
evaluations of Lotz contained in the report that was introduced 
into evidence during the SVP annual review hearing. 
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we will affirm 
the judgment of the circuit court. 
Affirmed. 
 
8