Opinion ID: 148501
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: “Clear and Convincing” Standard of Proof

Text: Aruanno argues that the SVPA is constitutionally flawed because it permits the State to involuntarily commit sex offenders upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence that the offender is a “sexually violent predator.” N.J.S.A. § 30:4-27.32. According to Aruanno, the constitutional right to due process requires that the State prove the fitness of offenders for commitment beyond a reasonable doubt. Aruanno’s position is flatly inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent governing traditional civil commitment statutes, which holds that a State need only prove the dangerousness of a potential committee by clear and convincing evidence. See Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992); Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 433 (1979). Indeed, in Addington the Supreme Court considered and expressly rejected the argument that the “beyond the reasonable doubt” standard applicable to criminal cases governs in civil commitment proceedings. Id. at 427-31. Accordingly, this claim fails.