Court Opinion

ID: 9716623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:46:08.119038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:47.282119
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RATHJE, specially concurring: I agree with the majority’s conclusion that respondent1 failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (the Act) (725 ILCS 207/1 et seq. (West 1998)) violates either the equal protection clause or the due process clause. I do not agree, however, with the majority’s decision to address other arguments not raised in respondent’s brief. The majority addresses respondent’s contentions that the Act contravenes the prohibition against double jeopardy; violates ex post facto principles; and violates article I, section 13, of the Illinois Constitution. Although respondent raised those arguments at the trial court level, he abandoned them on appeal when he failed to include them in his brief. These arguments therefore are waived (see 177 Ill. 2d Rs. 341(e)(7), (f)), and this court should not address them.  In the majority opinion, David Samuelson is referred to as “defendant.” Because this is a civil commitment proceeding and not a criminal case, I will refer to him as “respondent.”