Court Opinion

ID: 9742469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:14:26.221557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:32.893911
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE TRAPP, dissenting: I would reverse and remand for the reasons stated in People v. Pembrock, 23 Ill.App.3d 991, 320 N.E.2d 470, appeal allowed, 58 Ill.2d 595, which holds that an individual must be proven to be a sexually dangerous person beyond a reasonable doubt. The underlying offenses for these proceedings were charges of rape and aggravated battery. To convict of either would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Here one psychiatric opinion is conditioned upon a determination that defendant is in fact guilty of attempted rape. In comparative terms, if defendant’s criminal responsibility in the context of insanity1 was an issue, the prosecution would have to prove such responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt in order to confine him. People v. Gold, 38 Ill.2d 510, 222 N.E.2d 702, cert. denied, 392 U.S. 940, 20 L.Ed.2d 1400, 88 S.Ct. 2317. In Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 18 L.Ed.2d 326, 87 S.Ct. 1209, the court examined a Colorado statute which provided that upon conviction of a sex offense an individual might be sentenced to an indefinite term of one day to life under provisions of a “Sex Offenders Act.” The issue examined was due process in the context of notice and hearing. Noting that the sentence was not based upon a specified crime, the court said: “These commitment proceedings whether denominated cavil or criminal are subject both to the Equal Protection Clause * * * and to the Due Process Clause.” 386 U.S. 605, 608, 18 L.Ed.2d 326, 329. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 90 S.Ct. 1068, the court discussed the degree of proof required to establish juvenile delinquency. In holding that the constitutional essential of due process required proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the court noted that despite a “civil label” to the proceedings, defendant was subject to a loss of liberty comparable in seriousness to a felony conviction. Here it is potentially greater. Attempted rape is classified as a Class 2 felony2 with a minimum sentence of one year and a maximum of 20 years.3 Aggravated battery is specified as a Class 3 felony4 with a minimum sentence of one year and a maximum of 10 years.5 Upon such convictions defendant would be eligible for parole, as well as the benefits for good time served. But in these proceedings, defendant’s confinement is potentially indefinite and in order to obtain release he must prove his recovery by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Beksel, 10 Ill.App.3d 406, 294 N.E.2d 111.) The fact that upon such discharge, the pending charges will be dismissed does not eliminate the constitutional issue.6  We have considered the opinion in People v. Harter, 86 Ill.App.2d 461, 230 N.E.2d 15. There the issue presented was whether the judgment was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The court was not askéd to determine the degree or level of proof required as a constitutional issue. As noted in Winship (397 U.S. at 367, 25 L.Ed.2d at 377), the observance of a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt will not compel the State to abandon or displace any of the substantive benefits in the concept of treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders.   Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 6 — 2.    Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, pars. 8 — 4(c)(2), 11 — 1(c).    Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—1(b)(3).    Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 12^(d).    Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch..38, par. 1005 — 8—1(b)(4).    Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 105 — 9.