Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Civil Commitment of D.D.

June 22, 2007


On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, SVP-388-05.

Per curiam.



Submitted May 31, 2007

Before Judges Lefelt and Parrillo.

D.D. appeals from a May 18, 2005 order committing him to the Special Treatment Unit (STU), which is the secure custodial facility designated for the treatment of persons in need of commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. See N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.34a. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Perretti in her oral opinion of May 18, 2005.

A person who has committed a sexually violent offense may be confined pursuant to the SVPA only if he or she suffers from an abnormality that causes serious difficulty in controlling sexually violent behavior such that commission of a sexually violent offense is highly likely without confinement "in a secure facility for custody, care and treatment." In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 120, 132 (2002); N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26. Annual review hearings to determine whether the person remains in need of commitment despite treatment are required. N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.35; N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.32c(2).*fn1

Initial orders, as well as orders of continued commitment under the SVPA, must be based on "clear and convincing evidence that an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder, and presently has serious difficulty controlling harmful sexually violent behavior such that it is highly likely the individual will re-offend" if not committed to the STU. In re Commitment of G.G.N., 372 N.J. Super. 42, 46-47 (App. Div. 2004); see W.Z., supra, 173 N.J. at 132; In re Commitment of J.J.F., 365 N.J. Super. 486, 496-501 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 179 N.J. 373 (2004) writ of hab. corp. denied sub. nom. Fournier v. Brown, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 43577 (D.N.J.); In re Civil Commitment of V.A., 357 N.J. Super. 55, 63 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 177 N.J. 490 (2003); In re Civil Commitment of E.D., 353 N.J. Super. 450, 455-56 (App. Div. 2002), rev'd o.g., 183 N.J. 536 (2005); N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26; N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.32; N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.35. "[O]nce the legal standard for commitment no longer exists, the committee is subject to release." E.D., supra, 353 N.J. Super. at 455; see W.Z., supra, 173 N.J. at 132-33; N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.32; N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.35.

Our review of a commitment pursuant to the SVPA is narrow.

V.A., supra, 357 N.J. Super. at 63. The judge's determination is given the "'utmost deference' and modified only where the record reveals a clear abuse of discretion." Ibid. (quoting In re Civil Commitment of J.P., 339 N.J. Super. 443, 459 (App. Div. 2001)). Governed by this standard, we are satisfied that the record shows no such abuse with respect to the order under review. This order of initial commitment is adequately supported by the record and consistent with controlling legal principles. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).

By way of background, on January 29, 1996, D.D. pled guilty to the index sexual offense of first-degree aggravated sexual assault upon T.Q., his 15-year old stepdaughter who complained that D.D. had been sexually assaulting her for three years. He was sentenced to fifteen years at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC), with five years of parole ineligibility. This followed an earlier conviction for aggravated sexual assault upon five-year old, P.Q., D.D.'s other stepdaughter and sister of T.Q., for which he had received a twelve-year sentence at ADTC. According to his written statement to police at the time, D.D. vaginally penetrated P.Q., after which he pushed a ratchet into her vagina, causing the child severe injuries. Prior to these sexual assaults, D.D. had a history of sex offenses beginning at age fifteen when he was charged with, among other things, sodomy upon a six or seven-year old boy, for which he received an indeterminate term at Jamesburg.

At D.D.'s initial commitment hearing, the State produced four experts, all of whom had interviewed D.D. save for Dr. Luis Zeiguer, whom D.D. refused to submit to an interview. Nevertheless, based on his archival review, Dr. Zeiguer diagnosed D.D. with severe pedophilia; paraphilia NOS; antisocial personality disorder and alcoholism. According to Dr. Zeiguer, the combination of pedophilia and personality disorder elevate D.D.'s risk to re-offend and render him highly dangerous. D.D.'s personality disorder is both severe and a life-long condition with early onset. In addition, D.D. is manipulative and cunning, for whom treatment has not been successful. In fact, his denial of raping P.Q., according to Dr. Zeiguer, nullifies whatever progress he may have made in all the years of sex offender treatment at ADTC.

Dr. Robert Carlson confirmed Zeiguer's diagnosis of pedophilia; paraphilia NOS; personality disorder; and alcohol abuse. Dr. Carlson noted some deficits in D.D.'s treatment progress and that these deficits were demonstrated psychometrically by the Bumby scale where D.D. endorsed a number of cognitive distortions. In fact, despite D.D.'s long history of treatment, he has repeatedly re-offended. After six years in intense treatment at the ADTC and approximately two years of out-patient therapy, and after cessation of parole supervision, D.D. terminated treatment and commenced the sexual assault of his other stepdaughter. Dr. Carlson concluded that D.D.'s risk to sexually re-offend is high at this time because he has a history of re-offending despite having undergone significant treatment.

Dr. Corey Feiner-Escoto is a psychologist employed at the ADTC where she was D.D.'s primary case manager for approximately one year. She prepared a termination report summarizing D.D.'s treatment progress. Dr. Feiner-Escoto concluded that while in therapy, D.D. did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of his offending. She further explained that D.D. minimized his crimes and the harm that he had inflicted on his victims, particularly P.Q., whom he denied raping. In addition, D.D. did not demonstrate a knowledge of relapse prevention skills. According to Dr. Feiner-Escoto, the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.