Opinion ID: 6103672
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dr. Denison

Text: Dr. Charles Denison testified regarding the Government’s proposed Sexual Material Prohibition. He had not examined Mr. Englehart, but he had reviewed the presentence report for Mr. Englehart’s SORNA conviction and reports from Agent Smith and Officer Morton. Dr. Denison testified that risk factors for recidivism by convicted sex offenders generally include substance abuse, the quantity and nature of previous sexual deviance, general mental and behavioral stability or instability, and the type of 8 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 9 offense. He said use of adult pornography could also be a risk factor depending on the presence of other risk factors. He also testified that persons who are “prolific” users of adult pornography often become habituated to it, which leads them to seek out other forms of pornography. Id. at 80. Dr. Denison concluded that “several . . . risk factors” were present here, but he was “certainly not making any judgments about [Mr. Englehart’s] risk level because I haven’t conducted a psychosexual evaluation of Mr. Englehart.” Id. at 81. “[S]peaking generally,” he concluded that “even the use of adult pornography would be contraindicated or—or problematic” based on the presence of other risk factors including his criminal and psychological history, his known use of child pornography, and his recent “very high use” of pornography. Id. at 81-83. District Court’s Findings After the Government’s three witnesses testified, both sides presented argument and Mr. Englehart addressed the court. The district court then made the following findings:  Dr. Denison was a “significant authority” and had “provided some information to help the Court’s understanding.” ROA, Vol. 3 at 139.  Mr. Englehart had, by his own admission, viewed pornography in violation of his supervised release on three separate occasions, with the final incident involving “10 days straight” of viewing pornography. Id. at 139, 144.  Mr. Englehart has a history of alcoholism and mental illness. Id. at 142.  Mr. Englehart was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor in 1998. Id. 9 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 10  Mr. Englehart has been accused of sexually abusing another minor in a similar fashion.5 Id. at 142.  Mr. Englehart’s computer contained child pornography when he was arrested in 2011. Id. at 144.  People at the motel where Mr. Englehart lives are “viewing and passing around pornographic materials,” and “we know from Dr. Denison’s testimony, looking from the back forward, the danger of that for persons such as Mr. Englehart who do have that history in their background.” Id. at 148. “As a consequence” of these findings, the district court reimposed the Sexual Material Prohibition with the Government’s proposed modifications. Id. The court then addressed whether Mr. Englehart should be required to submit to a psychosexual evaluation. It noted that nearly two years had passed since Mr. Englehart’s last evaluation, and during that time Mr. Englehart had committed three violations of supervised release involving pornography. One of those violations, the court noted, involved “10 days straight of viewing pornography not under any kind of supervision whatsoever.” Id. at 149. The court was not “impress[ed]” that Mr. Englehart’s therapist “may or may not have said that it was okay and part of treatment in this case.” Id. The court “f[ou]nd in that kind of situation with that progression that that is something that deserves to be looked into . . . to restore trust, if nothing else, and to give us some direction going forward with regard to this defendant.” Id. at 150. 5 The district court did not mention the allegations of the two children leading to the 2009 Charges. 10 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 11 Finally, the Government asked the court “to clarify about the mental health treatment program as well as the release forms.” Id. at 151. The court responded: “I don’t think there’s any requirement—I think he needs to continue with mental health, and there will be a requirement that he participate in mental health and that the information that needs to be furnished is . . . the diagnosis, is he compliant, is he attending.” Id. Modified Conditions The district court entered an order imposing the following modified or additional conditions of supervised release: Sexual Material Prohibition The Defendant shall not possess, in any form, materials depicting child pornography, child erotica, or nude or sexual depictions of any child; or any materials described at 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8). The Defendant shall not access, possess, send, or receive any visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(B), if the materials taken as a whole, are primarily designed to arouse sexual desire.6 Mental Health Condition The defendant shall participate in and successfully complete a mental health treatment program approved by the U.S. Probation Officer, and abide by the rules, requirements, and conditions of the treatment program. The defendant shall not 6 Mr. Englehart notes that § 2256(2)(B)’s definition of “sexually explicit conduct” was taken from a child pornography statute. He suggests “it is unclear if the terms of the condition as stated in the district court’s order actually prohibit legal, adult pornography.” Aplt. Br. at 10-11 n.5. Apart from his failure to adequately develop this argument, it was clear at the Modification Hearing that the condition would apply to adult pornography. The district court cross-referenced to a definition in the statute and did not incorporate the statutory scheme. 11 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 12 discontinue treatment without the permission of the U.S. Probation Officer.7 Psychosexual Evaluation & Treatment Condition The defendant shall participate in and successfully complete a psychosexual evaluation with either Dr. Amanda Turlington or Dr. William Heineke. The cost of the evaluation will be paid for by the probation office. The defendant shall sign a release of authorization allowing the probation office to communicate with the provider and obtain the results of the evaluation. He shall participate in and successfully complete any recommended treatment in a program approved by the United States Probation Officer, and abide by the rules, requirements, and conditions of the treatment program. The defendant shall not discontinue treatment without the permission of the Probation Officer. ROA, Vol. 1 at 51-52.