Court Opinion

ID: 9781536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:50:52.247852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:27.746706
License: Public Domain

Greene, J.,
dissenting: I am troubled by several aspects of these commitment proceedings. At the outset, I am not satisfied that we can or should disregard in all cases what would be impermissible in a criminal prosecution merely because the proceedings under K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq. are considered civil commitment proceedings. See Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 138 L. Ed. 2d 501, *727117 S. Ct. 2072 (1997); In re Care & Treatment of Brown, 26 Kan. App. 2d 117, 119, 978 P.2d 300 (1999). It should be borne in mind that the statutory commitment scheme resembles a criminal proceeding in many respects, including involvement of the attorney general as the “prosecuting attorney,” K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 59-29a03(a); the requirement for a probable cause hearing, K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 59-29a05, akin to a prehminary hearing; the right to assistance of counsel if indigent, K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 59-29a06; the need for a unanimous verdict of a jury, K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 59-29a07; and the peril of indefinite commitment to the Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services, K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 59-29a07 and K.S.A. 59-29a09. Subsequent to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hendricks, our Supreme Court has applied or determined relevant the rules applicable in criminal proceedings to such cases. See, e.g., In re Care & Treatment of Hay, 263 Kan. 822, 835, 953 P.2d 666 (1998). In any event, it is undeniable that any person subject to these proceedings has at risk a substantial liberty interest. See In re Treatment of Hay, 263 Kan. at 831-32.1 think we should examine Foster s claims of error with these precepts in mind.
Evidence and Argument of Prior Determinations as Prosecutorial Misconduct or Invasion of the Province of Jury
Most troubling in this case is that the “manner of prosecution” by the State invaded the province of the jury in its repetitious reminders to the jury that there had already been numerous review determinations that Foster met the statutory standards for commitment. During opening statement, the attorney for the State remarked:
“By the time we get to this point where we are in front of twelve jurors and are asking you to make this determination a lot has happened. Not only has the Respondent been convicted of sexually violent offenses, but he has been incarcerated and has gone though a treatment program in prison and he has been evaluated by psychologists in prison and he was released on parole with the stipulation that he participate in outpatient treatment care. His parole was violated .... After the parole is violated and he was back in prison again, then the case — his case is reviewed by a committee called a multidisciplinary team which looks at all of his records, his charges, accusations, past sexual behavior, and that committee makes *728a determination as to whether or not he is a risk to reoffend. Then it is passed on to another committee, which is called the prosecutor’s [review] committee. That is where I come in and several other attorneys and we make a determination again based on the records [and] psychologists’ reviewed opinions [as to] whether, or not this man is at risk to reoffend, and tiren there is a hearing, a probable cause hearing where a Judge determines whether or not the State has enough evidence to go forward under tire Sexually Violent Predator Act. In this case, the Judge determined that there was and tiren [Foster was] transferred down to Larned State Security Hospital where another . . . evaluation is done. ... So this Respondent, Mr. Foster, has been through many layers of review and analyses until we finally get here . . . .” (Emphasis added.)
During the testimony of the State’s lead psychologist, the following exchange occurred:
“Q: Do you know if [respondents] go through any type of screening process before they' get to you other than the committee that you talked about that you reviewed the reports from?
“A: Well, before they leave the prison system, the clinical services evaluation is completed by clinicians in that system and then the information on each person who has been convicted of and incarcerated for a sex offense goes along to the multidisciplinary team. They do a review of the information and make a determination whether they see the person as a high risk to reoffend, and then the information goes along to the prosecutor’s review committee and that group reviews it and then if that group decides to proceed, the next step is the probable cause hearing; and if the person makes it through all of those steps, the final step would be an order to the state security hospital for this evaluation.” (Emphasis added.)
During closing arguments, the assistant attorney general stated:
“[A]s I told you during opening statement and as I think the evidence has shown to you, this man has gone through many levels of reviews: when he was first incarcerated, he was reviewed and analyzed and diagnosed by tire Kansas Department of Corrections psychiatric evaluations as a pedophile. Before he was released on parole again, . . . [he] comes back in the system and is reviewed again: ‘Pedophile. Not making progress or doing what he is supposed to do.’
“[I] am glad that I don’t have to come to you and say, “Yeah, he was out on parole and we caught him doing some little lads again.’ ” (Emphasis added.)
The approach taken by the State — to emphasize that the essential decision had already been made by certain screening and review committees and the court — invaded the province of the jury and violated the fundamental right to trial by juiy.
*729“ ‘ “The Sixth Amendment to die Constitution guarantees to a defendant the opportunity for a jury to decide guilt or innocence. [Citation omitted.] A necessary corollary is the right to have one’s guilt determined only upon proof beyond the jury’s reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged.” ’ [Citations omitted.]” State v. Brice, 276 Kan. 758, 769, 80 P.3d 1113 (2003).
This rule is not exclusive to criminal prosecutions; it has also been applied in civil proceedings. See, e.g., Lollis v. Superior Sales Co., 224 Kan. 251, 580 P.2d 423 (1978). Other courts have applied the rule in civil commitment proceedings for sexual violent predators. See, e.g., State v. Floray, 715 A.2d 855 (Del. Super. 1997). Urging a jury to defer to a prior determination of probable cause has been held clear error. See State v. Green, 313 N.J. Super. 385, 391-92, 712 A.2d 1245 (1998). The New Jersey court reasoned:
“[W]hatever the prosecutor’s intention may have been, arguing that the grand jury had found ‘enough probable cause to have a true bill against the defendant regarding these charges’ implied that the grand jury's indictment was a consideration which should influence [the jury] to convict. That implication is wrong and potentially prejudicial to the rights of tire defendant ....
“The court’s instruction that the indictment was not evidence was too general to dissipate the harm. It did not adequately counter the suggestion implicit in the prosecutor’s argument that the considered opinion of the grand jury was entitled to the trial jurors’ deference. [Citations omitted.]” 313 N.J. Super, at 391-92.
The majority accurately notes that Foster made no objection at trial to the admission of the evidence of the prior review determinations, nor has he articulated any such issues on appeal. Foster has raised, however, a claim of prosecutorial misconduct based upon the overview of these prior review determinations in the State’s opening statement. The majority concludes that this was not misconduct because the statements were introduced into evidence through the State’s psychologist and the evaluation report, thus vindicating the State’s overview. The problem with the majority’s rationale is that it justifies misconduct through other misconduct. At the time of the opening statement, the State knew or should have known that any evidence of the prior review determinations was improper as an invasion of the province of the jury and that evidence of polygraph results was inadmissible as a matter of law (see later discussion); the mere fact that Foster then failed to object to such evidence does not cleanse the misconduct. Ac*730cordingly, I respectfully dispute the notion that I have “gone well beyond” any issues raised by Foster. Furthermore, even if my concerns are based in part upon a sua sponte determination of error, I believe that the combination of errors in Foster s commitment trial make this precisely a case of exceptional circumstances where we are empowered to address the issues and take appropriate action as justice requires. See State v. Puckett, 230 Kan. 596, 599, 640 P.2d 1198 (1982).
Although my brethren find no plain error in the numerous references to tire prior review determinations, I am offended by the extent to which this conduct invaded the province of the factfinder. What jury would have the nerve to return anything but an affirmative verdict for tire State when it was made to appear that so many professionals who were presumably more expert than the juiy — including a “multidisciplinary team,” a “prosecutor s review committee” and the court itself — had already indicated that Foster should be committed? I simply do not find any manifestation of legislative intent in fire statutory scheme for this approach to these commitment proceedings. Whether it is called prosecutorial misconduct or something else, it offends my sense of justice for the respondent in such proceedings to face such a “stacked deck,” and I would reverse on fhis ground alone.
Polygraph Results were Inadmissible
Second, I recognize that generally the absence of a timely objection bars our review of resulting inadmissible testimony, but I disagree with tire majority in its refusal to examine Foster s claim that the State’s admission and reliance on the polygraph results in the Lamed evaluation report denied him a fair trial. Our Supreme Court has acknowledged that an appellate court may review prejudicial evidence admitted absence objection where there are exceptional circumstances in order to serve the interests of justice or to prevent a denial of fundamental rights. State v. Willis, 254 Kan. 119, Syl. ¶ 3, 864 P.2d 1198 (1993).
References in the evaluation report about the polygraph test results contained substantial prejudicial evidence that was used by the State against Foster. The report included the following:
*731“In addition, polygraph examinations showed ‘deception on having sexual contact with minors while on parole,’ according to a report dated May 19,1999, and another polygraph ‘came up deception indicated for contact with Minors.’
“Mr. Foster did not mention, nor was he asked about, polygraph results suggesting he had unauthorized contact with children, in addition to unauthorized sexual contact with children, while on parole.”
The evaluation report also referred to the polygraph test results in assessing future dangerousness or the likelihood of reoffending: “An additional concern is the fact [the] polygraph examinations suggested he was deceptive with regard to having unauthorized contact with, including sexual contact with, minors while on parole.”
Immediately after this statement, the report concluded that Foster’s pedophilia has “impaired his volitional capacity significantly, and has predisposed him to commit sexually violent offenses to a degree constituting such a person a menace to the health and safety of others.”
The State relied on this information as substantive evidence that Foster lacked control over his impulses and that he would reoffend. During opening statement, the State remarked that “[t]here were indications through the parole office that he had had unsupervised contact and perhaps sexual contact with minors while on parole.”
During closing argument, the State emphasized this again, stating: “The parole officer had some evidence that he was in fact in contact with minors again, and that is why we are here.”
Again during rebuttal, the State remarked: “The people who monitor him on parole knew what his conditions were and they would see he was not participating in treatment, and they could tell from the evidence that they had that he was having unsupervised contact with minors and they pulled him back in.”
Although the State was careful to avoid indicating that the information was determined by polygraph, the jury was urged to consider and rely upon the evaluation report’s information and to decide the ultimate issue in the case: Whether Mr. Foster was a sexually violent predator likely to reoffend. Further, admission of the Lamed evaluation report allowed the State to bootleg into ev*732idence the hearsay conclusions of a parole officer. See State v. Carson, 216 Kan. 711, 713, 533 P.2d 1342 (1975).
I would hold that admission of the Larned evaluation report containing polygraph results was reversible error. In Kansas, absent a stipulation by the parties, the results of a polygraph test are inadmissible in a criminal proceeding. State v. Wise, 237 Kan. 117, 124, 697 P.2d 1295 (1985). In State v. Shively, 268 Kan. 573, Syl., 999 P.2d 952 (2000), the Kansas Supreme Court reaffirmed that polygraph results were inadmissible at trial.
“Kansas appellate courts after [State v. Lowry, 163 Kan. 622, 185 P.2d 147 (1947)] have continued to disallow polygraph evidence in trials absent a stipulation of the parties. In so doing, we have noted the unreliability of the results in accurately measuring truthfulness and deceit, and that such evidence invades die unique role of the jury as truthfinder. [State v. Wakefield, 267 Kan. 116, 133, 977 P.2d 941 (1999)]. We have continued to voice concern about die weight a juiy might place on such evidence. State v. Martin, 237 Kan. 285, 293, 699 P.2d 486 (1985). It has also been said that polygraph evidence is considered inadmissible because the polygraph does not ‘automatically and unerringly’ disclose a lie and cannot be considered sufficiendy accurate because of die human elements involved, including die psychological and emotional makeup of the examinee and the competence of die examiner. State v. Blosser, 221 Kan. 59, 60-61, 558 P.2d 105 (1976).” 268 Kan. at 580-81.
These concerns, coupled with the fact that the Larned report contained prejudicial hearsay, compel a conclusion that the report should not have been admitted.
The majority notes that our Supreme Court has refused to consider the admissibility of polygraph results where no contemporaneous objection was made in a first-degree murder case, citing State v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58, 63-66, 936 P.2d 727 (1997). I do not find Monda to be persuasive here because the prosecutor in that case did not directly introduce results of the polygraph examination. Here, not only were the results introduced but the entire evaluation report was admitted as an exhibit, thus placing before the jury both the polygraph results and tire hearsay evidence of impermissible contact with minors during parole. The error and the consequences of the error are significantly more egregious here than in Monda. I recognize that there might be room for disagreement, but I conclude that consideration of this issue is nec*733essaiy to serve the interests of justice and to prevent a denial of fundamental rights. See Willis, 254 Kan. at 125.
I would hold that the admission of the Larned evaluation report containing polygraph results denied Foster tire right to a fair trial.
Instruction No. 2 was Plain Error
Finally, I take issue with the majority as to the potential impact on the jury of the content of Instruction No. 2, which explained the consequences of the verdict in terms of community safety. We have previously held that the jury is not to be concerned with and does not determine the course of treatment for a sexually violent predator. In re Care & Treatment of Lair, 28 Kan. App. 2d 51, 53, 11 P.3d 517, rev. denied 270 Kan. 898 (2000). Instruction No. 2 instructed that the purpose of the trial was to determine whether Foster “was a sexually violent predator who should be civilly committed to the custody of the Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services . . . until such time as his mental abnormality or personality disorder has so changed that he is safe to be at large.” Not only did this instruction presuppose critical aspects of the jury’s determination, i.e., that Foster suffered from a mental abnormality or personality disorder, it placed squarely on the jurors’ shoulders the safety of their community and those who abide in it. As noted by Foster, tire California Court of Appeals has held that any such instruction is error. People v. Collins, 10 Cal. App. 4th 690, 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 768 (1992).
The majority distinguishes Collins on the basis that (i) Foster’s jury was not instructed that he would be released on parole if not committed, and (ii) the language of Instruction No. 2 was not on the verdict form. Notwithstanding these distinctions, I respectfully conclude that Instruction No. 2 was even more harmful than its parallel in Collins because it clearly implied or presupposed that Foster suffered from a “mental abnormality or personality disorder” and was subject to commitment until “he is safe to be at large.” Once again, the jury was essentially instructed that at least one of its findings had already been made and that the community’s safety was in its hands. I would conclude that such an instruction was indeed plain error.
*734I respect the unwillingness of my colleagues to ascribe exceptional circumstances and take appropriate action in this case because I acknowledge that the standard is entirely subjective. With due respect for the majority, the balance is tipped for me because I believe that the relative infancy of K.S.A. 59-29a01 etseq. dictates that our appellate courts examine more closely claims of error such as those before us in order to guide and direct future commitment proceedings under the Act. It may be difficult to look objectively at cases where the respondent has engaged in such egregious sexual misconduct and may indeed warrant commitment, but the Constitution surely requires some modicum of due process prior to detention and indefinite commitment.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.