Opinion ID: 4554548
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The right to be represented by counsel or, if

Text: indigent, by appointed counsel; b. The right to be present at the court hearing unless the court determines that because of the person’s conduct at the court hearing the proceeding cannot reasonably continue while the person is present; c. The right to present evidence; d. The right to cross-examine witnesses; and e. The right to a hearing in camera. [N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.31(a) to (e).] 13 At the hearing, the court must determine whether the person at issue is a “sexually violent predator” for purposes of the SVPA. The Legislature defined the term “sexually violent predator” to denote a person who has been convicted, adjudicated delinquent or found not guilty by reason of insanity for commission of a sexually violent offense, or has been charged with a sexually violent offense but found to be incompetent to stand trial, and 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.] The Legislature defined the phrase “[l]ikely to engage in acts of sexual violence” to mean that “the propensity of a person to commit acts of sexual violence is of such a degree as to pose a threat to the health and safety of others.” Ibid. Addressing a due process challenge to the SVPA, we held that a person subject to an SVPA civil commitment proceeding may be considered to “pose a threat to the health and safety of others,” as that phrase appears in the SVPA, “if he or she were found, by clear and convincing evidence, to have serious difficulty in controlling his or her harmful behavior such that it is highly likely that the individual will not control his or her sexually violent behavior and will 14 reoffend.” In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 130 (2002) (emphasis added). Thus construed, the SVPA imposes on the State the burden to prove three elements 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) (quoting W.Z., 173 N.J. at 130).] To meet its burden under the SVPA, the State typically presents the testimony of experts who opine on the likelihood that the person subject to civil commitment will reoffend. Those experts routinely rely on actuarial assessment instruments, “developed to assess a sex offender’s risk of reoffense by comparing him or her to the risk characteristics of groups of other sex offenders monitored for recidivism.” W.Z., 173 N.J. at 133. Those assessment instruments “mainly measure static factors,” which “are historical facts about the offender which do not change.” In re Commitment of R.S., 339 N.J. Super. 507, 517 (App. Div. 2001), aff’d 173 N.J. 134, 137 (2002). In contrast, dynamic factors are “elements which can be modified over time.” In re 15 Commitment of J.P., 339 N.J. Super. 443, 451 (App. Div. 2001). As the Appellate Division commented in a decision regarding the Attorney General’s sex-offender classification guidelines for tiering under Megan’s Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23, the Registrant Risk Assessment Scale (RRAS), “[u]nlike the immutable static factors, nature and seriousness of the offense, the dynamic categories relate to the characteristics of the offender and community support and are evidenced by current conditions as found at the time the registrant’s risk to re-offend is assessed.” In re H.M., 343 N.J. Super. 219, 223 (App. Div. 2001). Applying the reliability standard of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923), we found certain actuarial risk assessment instruments “admissible in evidence in a civil commitment proceeding under the SVPA when such tools are used in the formation of the basis for a testifying expert’s opinion concerning the future dangerousness of a sex offender.” In re Commitment of R.S., 173 N.J. 134, 137 (2002); see also W.Z., 173 N.J. at 133 (observing that the Court’s holding in R.S. “requires that we reject W.Z.’s contentions concerning the unreliability of those actuarial instruments”); In re Civil Commitment of A.Y., 458 N.J. Super. 147, 172 (App. Div. 2019) (noting the admissibility of actuarial risk assessment instruments under the Court’s decisions in R.S. and W.Z); see also In re Registrant J.M., 167 N.J. 490, 49916 507 (2001) (rejecting challenge to weighting of static factors more heavily than dynamic factors in RRAS under Megan’s Law). The State’s expert testimony and the risk assessment instruments on which the experts rely comprise the core of the State’s proofs in a typical SVPA civil commitment hearing. See, e.g., In re Civil Commitment of J.M.B., 395 N.J. Super. 69, 94 (App. Div. 2007) (describing State’s SVPA proofs to include expert witnesses who “both testified that the documents they relied on were commonly used by experts in the field of sex offender risk assessment”), aff’d, 197 N.J. 563 (2009); In re Civil Commitment of D.L., 351 N.J. Super. 77, 90 (App. Div. 2002) (noting that the State’s SVPA case “generally consist[s] of extensive psychological or psychiatric testimony, as well as evidence of actuarial risk assessments”); J.P., 339 N.J. Super. at 451-55 (discussing the State’s use of expert testimony and risk assessment tools at SVPA commitment hearing); In re Commitment of W.Z., 339 N.J. Super. 549, 559-60 (App. Div. 2001) (summarizing the State’s SVPA commitment case to include the “results of several actuarial risk assessment instruments” “to get as much information as possible” on the individual), aff’d 173 N.J. 109 (2002). Thus, the testimony of experts and the risk assessment instruments on which they rely are often the pivotal proofs on the question whether the individual is highly likely to offend again. 17