On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, SVP-168-01.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Messano.
J.S.W. is a resident of the Special Treatment Unit (STU), the secure custodial facility designated for the treatment of persons in need of involuntary civil commitment pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (the SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. He appeals from the November 15, 2007, order of Judge Philip M. Freedman, which continued his commitment after a twoday hearing. He argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he continues to "suffer from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes [him] likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for control, care and treatment." N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26. After due consideration of the record and applicable legal standards, we affirm.
J.S.W. was first committed to the STU on June 6, 2001, following his conviction and sentence on one count of sexual assault in May 1996. J.S.W. maxed-out on that sentence, and the State sought civil commitment thereafter, even though it had been earlier determined after an evaluation by the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC), that J.S.W. was "not eligible for sentencing under the purview of the New Jersey Sex Offender Act." He appealed his initial commitment, and after remand required by the Supreme Court's ruling in In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (2002), the trial court reiterated its initial decision and a revised judgment of commitment was entered on September 30, 2002. We affirmed that commitment on J.S.W.'s first appeal that combined issues presented at the original hearing and the remand in a decision we issued on July 16, 2004. In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of J.S.W., A-1085-02 and A-1590-02 (App. Div. July 16, 2004). At two subsequent hearings, J.S.W. stipulated to his continued commitment.
The hearing that gives rise to this appeal commenced on October 23, 2007, before Judge Freedman with the presentation of testimony from Doctor Dean DiCrisce, a psychiatrist on staff at the STU, who indicated that J.S.W. declined to be interviewed for the evaluation. Defense counsel requested an adjournment, noting that J.S.W. now wished to participate in the interview. Judge Freedman granted the request, observing that the doctor was able to conduct an interview in short order and the matter would not require any long continuance.
The State then called Doctor Doreen Stanzione, a psychologist who was also on staff of the STU and had participated in the Treatment Progress Review Committee (TPRC) and its assessment of J.S.W.'s current condition and treatment progression. Stanzione reviewed the various participation notes in J.S.W.'s file, as well as the TPRC's report of October 3, 2007. She reiterated the TPRC's recommendation that J.S.W. remain in Phase Three of the treatment plan.
Stanzione noted that J.S.W. was an active participant in group meetings, however, she characterized his activity as "a little bit more ambivalent about . . . doing his own work . . . ." She continued, "[J.S.W.] hasn't been speaking about his own offending," and observed that, "it kind of becomes questionable whether he is doing Phase [Three] work." Stanzione confirmed that the treatment records revealed that J.S.W. attended thirty-two group sessions, but had also been absent on twenty-seven other occasions. She confirmed that J.S.W. had not "taken the floor" at the sessions since May 4, 2006. Stanzione opined that J.S.W. suffered from "paraphilia N.O.S. non-consent," and she gave reasons for this conclusion based upon J.S.W.'s offending history and subsequent treatment records.
The hearing was continued until November 9, 2007, when DeCrisce was again called as a witness to describe the interview he had conducted with J.S.W. in the interim and a second report he had authored as a result. DeCrisce noted that J.S.W. was "somewhat verbally hostile and somewhat inappropriate . . . extremely angry and frustrated" during the session. He observed that J.S.W. "stated that multiple interviewers had seen him in the past and ha[d] twisted his words . . . into their own agenda." In this regard, DeCrisce extensively reviewed J.S.W.'s treatment records and the explanations he had given in the past regarding his offending conduct, which were inconsistent with the reported history of those events.
DeCrice's initial report, completed before the interview, diagnosed J.S.W. with "paraphilia N.O.S." but he noted that after conducting the interview, the opinion was amended in his later report to "[p]ossible or rule out paraphilia." He explained that he could not determine whether J.S.W. was someone "who rapes in . . . [an] anti-social way," or "[o]ne who rapes in a paraphilic way," i.e., "one who is sexually aroused by the force and control necessary in the sexual activity." This ambivalence was the result of J.S.W. "not significantly detail[ing] his accounts in group in any way in the last one and a half to two years."
DeCrisce referenced J.S.W.'s long criminal history and alcohol abuse in his past. He also described the findings made as a result of various psychological tests that had been administered to J.S.W. and concluded that he was "within the highest range-actuarially of risk to recidivate." In conjunction with J.S.W.'s "anti-social personality ...