Opinion ID: 2294072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Superior Court Review [24]

Text: Before convening a hearing in open court, the Superior Court magistrate, [25] acting pursuant to § 11-37.1-15, conducted an in camera review of all the materials that formed the basis for the board of review's determination of Mr. Germane's risk level and the manner of community notification. At that time, the magistrate also made the statutorily mandated determination as to whether and to what extent the production of witnesses and cross examination [should] be required or permitted depending on the complexities of the matter involved, [and] the extent of doubt concerning the correctness of the level, nature and extent of the notification proposed   . Section 11-37.1-15(a)(2). The magistrate also indicated that appellant would be permitted to present testimony from witnesses regarding the correctness of the level, nature and extent of the notification proposed by the board of review. The Superior Court magistrate conducted a hearing with respect to Mr. Germane's status on July 6, 7, 11, and 12, 2005. At the outset, Mr. Germane's attorney moved to strike and dismiss the board of review's determination that appellant should be classified as a Risk Level III offender. Counsel argued that chapter 37.1 of title 11 is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied; she further asked the Court to reject the findings and conclusions of the board of review on the ground that they were entered into in violation of Mr. Germane's state and federal constitutional rights. Specifically, counsel challenged the statute as being violative of appellant's right to both procedural and substantive due process and as also being violative of his right to equal protection. She further contended that the statute violated the separation of powers doctrine and was also an unconstitutional ex post facto law. The magistrate noted that the issue before him was whether or not appellant presented a danger to the community and whether or not his actions and his conduct require this community, wherever it may be, to be put on notice of the fact that Mr. Germane is in the community    so as to protect the health and safety of the public at large   . To the extent that Mr. Germane challenged the registration requirement associated with the sex offender registration and notification process, the magistrate concluded as follows: Mr. Germane pleaded nolo contendere    to three sex offenses.    As a condition of his plea,    he is required to register as a sex offender in the community in which he resides.    To seek to modify the registration aspect of his plea would require a modification in the sentence that was imposed, and very well may modify or vacate the plea which he entered. At the very minimum, Mr. Germane would have to file a [Super. R.Crim. P.] 35 motion to modify [or to correct an illegal sentence]. The magistrate concluded that the illegal sentence issue was not properly before the court, and he denied the motion to negotiate or modify the requirement of registration. The magistrate also denied the motion challenging (on various constitutional grounds) both the statute and the board of review's determination. He noted that the very reason that we are here today [is to] give Mr. Germane his due process and an opportunity to be heard. The state then introduced the STATIC-99 into evidence and indicated that it constituted the state's prima facie case. Mr. Germane's counsel objected on two grounds. While conceding that the STATIC-99 may be a validated risk assessment tool, counsel first argued that the state had not introduced any evidence showing that it had been performed    by a qualified person who has been trained in the use of the tool. Counsel further argued that whoever used the tool had considered factors that are not part of the factors    dictated in the STATIC 99 [manual]; she contended that that person had bumped up the level with factors that are not part of the facts [while] ignor[ing] other dynamic factors that should be included. The magistrate accepted the STATIC-99 over the just-summarized objections, and he took judicial notice of decisions rendered in other jurisdictions that recognize the STATIC 99 as a valid risk assessment tool. The state then rested. Pursuant to the provisions of § 11-37.1-16(a), the burden then shifted to Mr. Germane to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence that the determination [of] either the level of notification [or] the manner in which it is proposed to be accomplished is not in compliance with this chapter or the guidelines adopted pursuant to [chapter 37.1]. The appellant presented the testimony of Carol Ball, Ph.D. (a licensed psychologist specializing in the treatment and evaluation of sexual offenders) and Alan Feinstein, M.A. (the supervising clinical psychologist for the Department of Corrections, who had previously evaluated Mr. Germane at the time of his probation violation). In addition, Mr. Germane also testified on his own behalf. Doctor Ball testified that she had met with Mr. Germane on two occasions during the Summer of 2007 in order to conduct a clinical diagnosis and evaluation and to perform several psychological tests. In addition, Dr. Ball reviewed (1) the reports of prior treatment providers; (2) the board of review's STATIC-99 risk assessment; and (3) numerous law enforcement records relating to Mr. Germane's offenses. She agreed that appellant would score a 2 on the STATIC-99; but, unlike the board of review, she believed that that score overestimated Mr. Germane's risk of re-offense. She based this conclusion on the fact that appellant had been incident-free between 2000 and 2005. [26] She also discussed the limitations of the STATIC-99 as a predictive instrument in individual cases generally. Mr. Feinstein testified that he continued to believe that appellant presented a low risk to recidivate; this opinion was predicated on [Mr. Germane's] receiving what [Mr. Feinstein] consider[ed] to be appropriate treatment and monitoring   . He noted that, when Mr. Germane committed his probation violation in 2003, he was not then in treatment; he added that [w]hile he was in treatment, there were no problems. He recalled that he had recommended counseling in 2003 because Mr. Germane would get himself in trouble when things were not going well in his personal life; Mr. Feinstein further opined that individual counseling would help [Mr. Germane] towards recognizing and controlling his activities, a means to deal with those feelings and issues. It was his opinion, however, that Mr. Germane's risk of reoffending would be significant were he not receiving any treatment. The appellant testified that the 1998 sexual assaults occurred because he was lonely, depressed, and angry following the dissolution of his first marriage. Although he maintained that he originally picked up the women believing them to be prostitutes, he admitted that he ultimately forced all three to have sex with him. He denied that he had used a weapon in the commission of the crimes, although he acknowledged that he did keep a knife holster in his truck for work-related reasons. Mr. Germane also confirmed that he stopped taking his prescribed antidepressant medication in 2002 because he no longer felt that doing so was necessary. During that same period, he was also in the process of breaking up with his then-girlfriend. Although he acknowledged that his behavior at the time of the Central Falls incident in 2003 was inappropriate, he reiterated that he was simply seeking female companionship and did not intend to assault the two women. On October 3, 2005, the magistrate ultimately affirmed the board of review's classification of appellant as a Risk Level III offender. The magistrate concluded that Mr. Germane failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the risk level classification and proposed manner of community notification were not in compliance with the Sexual Offender Registration and Community Notification Act or the relevant guidelines adopted pursuant to said statute. He further found as follows: [A] valid risk assessment tool, Static 99, was used. Other variable factors (although treated differently for score results) were considered by the Board [of Review] and listed in its supplemental report.    These factors were properly utilized in determining the [Board of Review's] recommendation. The magistrate noted that defendant introduced no evidence that the extent of notification called for by his tier categorization was excessive because of unique aspects of his case. (Emphasis in original.) Rather, he noted, appellant challenged his assessed level of risk by presenting the reports and testimony of the various mental health professionals that had evaluated him since 1999. The magistrate noted that the reports of both Dr. Seghorn and Dr. Wincze's suggest that Mr. Germane committed the 1998 sexual assaults impulsively as the result of unsettled circumstances in his personal life. The magistrate further noted that both Dr. Ball and Mr. Feinstein appeared to gloss over or ignore the incident in November of 2003; with respect to that incident, the magistrate observed that the conduct was similar to conduct which resulted in defendant's original conviction. He further observed that the 2003 probation violation involved two handicapped girls who were strangers, and he added that these facts resembled those present in one of his 1998 offenses (also involving an adult, mentally handicapped, female stranger). The magistrate opined that Mr. Germane's more innocuous account of the 2003 incident, as related during the hearing, was totally lacking in credibility   . The magistrate concluded that appellant had not met his burden of persuasion, and he upheld his classification by the board of review as a Risk Level III offender. Mr. Germane timely filed this appeal from the Superior Court's judgment.