Opinion ID: 1743191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Was There Competent Evidence to Support Scoring of Item 9 of Risk Assessment Instrument?

Text: McCray also challenged the assessment of 30 points on item 9 of the risk assessment instrument, entitled Nature of Sexual Assault Behavior. The scorer is instructed to check all of the seven listed behaviors that apply. The manual for the Nebraska sex offender risk assessment instrument (Manual) includes the following scoring criteria for item 9: Score the nature of the sexual assault in the current offense and any previous sexual assaults noted in official documentation. Do not score any category more than once. According to the commentary set forth in the Manual, item 9 is designed to reflect the level of risk posed by an offender who uses varying degrees of force. The greater the amount of force or the more types of force utilized, the higher the score. McCray was scored 5 points for behavior that fell into the Fondling/Manipulate/Seduce/ Coerce/Authority category and 25 points for behavior categorized as Physical Force or Violence/Restrained Victim/Threatened with Weapon or Dangerous Object. The scoring was based on behavior described in exhibits 6, 7, and 8, which are transcripts of unsworn statements obtained by police from three different persons on January 14 and 15, 1997. McCray's attorney objected to the admissibility of these exhibits on the ground that there was no evidence that the conduct alleged to have occurred in the statements was true, nor was there evidence that the statements were relevant to any of the third degree sexual assault convictions that were used to score this instrument. McCray's objections were overruled by the hearing officer. Dr. Shannon Black, testifying on behalf of the NSP, testified that for purposes of scoring the instrument: We look for official documentation of those 14 items. If something is never charged or it never comes to a final conclusion, then that item would not be scored, but anything else that  if there's founded allegation, for example, in a CPS record, we would score that. So, as long [as] we have official documentation of it and  then we would score that type of behavior of that sexual assaultive incident. So it doesn't have to ultimately be a conviction because, again, we could have plea bargains or other things [where] that specific case [does] not [result in a] convict[ion], but we have official documentation of that behavior when we score that. On cross-examination, Black admitted that she was unable to correlate any of the victims' statements to any of McCray's convictions. The hearing officer concluded that the Manual does not require that the offender be convicted or even charged for the behavior that forms the basis of scoring item 9. She opined that there must simply be evidence of physical force or restraint in official documentation. In its de novo review, the district court agreed that item 9 had been properly scored. McCray primarily contends that exhibits 6, 7, and 8 should not have been used to score item 9 because it is unclear from the record whether the behavior described in those statements formed the basis of a convicted charge, or a charge which was either dismissed or withdrawn. Under SORA, the NSP must consider any criminal history of the offender indicative of a high risk of recidivism. § 29-4013(2)(b)(iii). The NSP must specifically consider: (A) Whether the conduct of the sex offender was found to be characterized by repetitive and compulsive behavior; (B) Whether the sex offender committed the sexual offense against a child; (C) Whether the sexual offense involved the use of a weapon, violence, or infliction of serious bodily injury; (D) The number, date, and nature of prior offenses; (E) Whether psychological or psychiatric profiles indicate a risk of recidivism; (F) The sex offender's response to treatment; (G) Any recent threats by the sex offender against a person or expressions of intent to commit additional crimes; and (H) Behavior of the sex offender while confined. Id. We agree that the criminal history to which the statute refers is not limited to conduct for which the offender has been convicted. However, it does not follow that wholly unsubstantiated allegations are necessarily a part of such history. See Matter of C.A., 146 N.J. 71, 89, 679 A.2d 1153, 1162 (1996) (holding criminal history factors similar to § 29-4013(2)(b)(iii) include nonconviction offenses provided there is sufficient evidence that the offense occurred). Item 3 of the SORA risk assessment instrument, entitled Other Sex/Sex Related Attorney Filed Charges Not Resulting in Conviction, specifically permits the scoring of certain criminal charges which do not result in conviction. The Manual sets forth the scoring criteria for item 3 as follows: Total number of misdemeanor or felony sex/sex related attorney filed charges that the subject had but was not convicted. No convictions should be used. Include criminal history from Nebraska and other jurisdictions. This would include any sex/sex related charges associated with the current conviction that were plea-bargained. Include sex offense charges that have an unknown disposition, juvenile criminal adjudications (if available) and dismissed charges that were part of a plea bargain, but not wholly dismissed, declined, not guilty or nolle prosecute. (Emphasis in original.) Based upon the Manual and Black's testimony, it seems clear that under item 9, the scorer could include those behaviors related to the convicted sex offenses scored in item 1 as reflected in the official documentation of those convictions, inasmuch as the conviction would ordinarily establish the truth of the documentation. The scorer could also include behaviors associated with charged offenses not resulting in conviction which are scored under item 3 because the prosecutor's decision to file the charge and the absence of an acquittal or outright dismissal afford some basis for concluding that the facts reflected in the official documentation are true. In this case, however, there is nothing in the record to correlate the behaviors reflected in the victim statements to any of the three sex offenses for which McCray was convicted. Moreover, McCray received a score of 0 on item 3 of the risk assessment instrument, indicating that he had no attorney filed sex offense charges not resulting in conviction which could be considered for purposes of determining his risk of recidivism. The comment for item 3 states: Per pre-hearing conference . . . McCray was convicted of 3 counts [sic] charges were not plea bargained as originally scored 08/27/02 Dr. Black. Thus, the truth of the accounts contained in the victim statements cannot be established on the ground that they were relied upon as a basis for prosecution. Nor is there anything else in the record to establish the truth of the unsworn statements. Section 84-914(1) provides in part: An agency may admit and give probative effect to evidence which possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs and exclude incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and unduly repetitious evidence. In McKibbin v. State, 5 Neb. App. 570, 577, 560 N.W.2d 507, 512 (1997), the Nebraska Court of Appeals concluded in an income withholding proceeding that a court clerk's mere indication to an attorney that a father owed back child support was insufficient to establish that fact even under the relaxed evidentiary rule of § 84-914(1). Here, we conclude that the unsworn victim statements which were not correlated to any offense for which McCray was charged or convicted and which bore no other indicia of probative value did not constitute competent evidence to support the NSP's scoring of item 9 of the risk assessment instrument.